Grandmother stolen at 2 years of age (1897). Help?

[heywood]

Will someone check over this please.
This may be Mary Ann but there is still room for doubt with timings and statements.

Oct-Dec 1895. Mary Ann Fisher birth Basford

29th January 1896 Mary Ann Fisher baptised Ilkeston. Mother is Harriet Fisher

7th March 1896 Marriage of James Hall and Harriet Fisher

13/14 November 1897 Loughborough Fair

Hall says he was with his wife from his marriage until the fair.
She went off with another man at the fair.
 She and another youngster went away. It does not say it is her child.
Abt December 1897 wife was looking for him and said they had purchased the child at Derby 
It did not belong to him. Hall disputed this.

Florence Lea with him since then.
I can't see a Mary Sheriff.

Heywood

[susan hemmings]

Well done giblet.  Thank you for the write up.

I wonder what would have happened to "Mr Hall" today.  He would certainly have got a good wallop in jail.  It is awful that people in court found the happenings amusing.

Wonder where he went with Ms Lea.  I hope he had a rotton life after this.

[cocksie]

Mary Sheriff was the 78 yo witness.

I, too, have been following this thread since reading OP with coffee about 46 hours ago.

So here is my "2 bobs worth"

Regarding the Christian name "Mary Ann"
1. James Hall (in newspaper report) refers to the child as "it" - never a name.
2. It occurs to me that, upon Hall's arrest, the child would have been taken into care and it COULD have been that the caregivers (having no knowledge of a name) gave the child the christian name then and there. After all they have to be able to call the child something....
3. By the time this gets to court, Mary Sheriff the witness refers to the child as "little Mary Ann" as that is how the court is referring to the child .... But this is a recent name bestowed on the child by recent caregivers since the arrest of Hall ......

I don't want to be a wet blanket as you have all done such wonderful work 
I am also intrigued about the "given" surname of "Williams".
And another query, possibly legal, but would there be leniency given to a perpetrator if the abuse was to their own child as opposed to abuse to a child "purchased" (as one person in the court alleges). Hall is a nasty piece of work and I can't see that he is likely to be truthful - just interested in saving his own skin.
The punishment given to Hall is laughable.
Amazingly sad and horrific case of child abuse.

This Mary Sheriff is someone, I think, that is worth looking into as well
Cocksie

[cocksie]

It is awful that people in court found the happenings amusing.

The court did not find it amusing.  Rather the witness to the abuse was indicating that she saw the abuse and that others who were present thought that the abuse of the child by Hall was amusing. The witness states she, herself, could not watch the abuse.

Cocksie

[seahall]

Just rang Derby Record Office they have no holdings for the NSPCC.

TNA have an address as records now of line, yet contact details listed.

http://www.rootschat.com/links/0tyy/

Sandy

[heywood]

I have looked for Mary Sherriff as she says she knew them. Her age should help and also she mentions Whitwick. I hope someone can find her.
There are Halls in that area but the James is married in 1901 and a coal miner - nothing to indicate anything untoward.
I also think we should err on the side of caution. It is emotional but were the witnesses or evidence totally reliable? We just don't know. The sentence seems very lenient even though it is hard labour.

[cocksie]

Am in process of trawling newspapers later to see if there is any further mention of the case etc. have also reread posts carefully  and can now see clearly the ickleston old church marriage and month etc and how Fisher surname of mother was established.
Must learn to read closely and retain information

[loobylooayr]

 Regarding the Christian name "Mary Ann"
1. James Hall (in newspaper report) refers to the child as "it" - never a name.

Copied above from cocksie's post .

I don't think it was unusual for people (either beggars or those in authority) and the press at this time to refer to a child as 'it'. During my own research into an incident in my family c.1885, a child is repeatedly referred to in the news report as 'it' and in fact the sex of the child is not even mentioned .

[susan hemmings]

Thanks cocksie.

I need to read it in the sense it is written - not what I think I see!