Author Topic: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?  (Read 2264 times)

Offline Colin Cruddace

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,557
  • Looking for GG Grandad... Must have GSH
    • View Profile
1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« on: Tuesday 12 October 10 00:19 BST (UK) »
This is my 3rd attempt to post because of oversized images.  :-[
I should know better by now but losing the text of the message is really gutting so here's a brief request. Can anyone suggest what's going on?

Colin



Offline AMBLY

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,788
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 02:02 BST (UK) »
Hi Colin

Any idea what's the word after 'engagement' in the last line of the red writing on page 2 ?

ATTESTED 26 Jan 1905
AWOL on 17 March 1905
IMPRISONED 20 mar 1905 awaiting trial (for having been Awol)
TRIED 5 Apr 1905 and sentenced to more imprisonment (possibly time-served awaiting trial was taken into consideration?)
FREED & Returned to duty 10 Apr 1905
AWOL again 11 Apr 1905 - the day after he was out of prison for the last awol offence.
TRIED 28 Apr 1905 and sent to prison again for being awol
FREED 14 Jul 1905 then: "7 day I H.L permitted by" the boss
DISCHARGED Misconduct 22 Jul 1905

Whatever the reason was that he went AWOL twice so soon after attesting, and whatever the reason was that he joined up in the first place (by his own decison or was he compelled?) - it would seem to me that he was considered trouble, possibly from the get go or at least from when he went awol the second time (ie: didn't learn any lesson rom the first stretch).

Maybe when they let him out the second time on 14 Jul, he was considered likely to do it again so the sent him home, technically on leave (7 days I H.L ? - 7 days home leave?? ) while they went about formalising the process of getting rid of him, which was completed 7 days afterward on 22 Jul . Maybe they went looking for a reason to get rid of him and found it in his attestation - a false statement therein - and used that. Rather than imprison him for up to 2 years for a false statement (a possible penalty which is outlined on page 1 to which he signed) they just let him go on a misconduct.

So what is it in the statements on page 1 he made that can be proved as false?
Robert CRUDACE age 19 - 26 Jan 1905
Nr 8022 - Richmond Yorksire
born: St Pauls Middlesbro, Yks
British Subject
Resides in father's house
Bricklayer
Not an apprentice
Not married
Not ever been convicted or imprisoned
Not ever been nor presently in, Army Militia or marines
Never been rejected for service due to being unfit

Do you believe he is Robert Renwick CRUD(D)ACE b 1885 Middlesbro to William & Agnes (census 1901 & 1891 & birth reg).

Cheers
AMBLY
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

"Now that we're all here, I'm not sure if we're all there...."

 Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz
 Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace
    ~Benito Juarez (1806-1872)

Offline DudleyWinchurch

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 05:27 BST (UK) »
I think that the word in red that you refer to is probably "reckons".

I don't think that there is any clue in the document itself as to why the statement was fraudulent.  Are you sure that he was not married, apprenticed or signed up elsewhere?  Is there any evidence that the person who this is supposed to be was, in fact, elsewhere at the time.

Otherwise, going by his military record then perhaps it would be surprising that he has no former convictions, or is it possible that he was just far too young and they were just trying to keep him away from any sort of military action while they proved this and discharged him?  Possibly a cousin or other relative of the one who was aged 20?
McDonough, Oliver, McLoughlin, O'Brien, Cuthbert, Keegan, Quirk(e), O'Malley, McGuirk (Ireland)
Dudley, Winchurch, Wolverson, Brookes (Black Country)
Concannon, Moore, Markowski (Markesky), Mottram, Lawton (Black Country)


Offline macintosh

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 09:07 BST (UK) »
Ambly,
7days 1 HL =  HL is probably Hard Labour

James

Offline AMBLY

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,788
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 12:04 BST (UK) »
Hi James  ;D

I did think "Hard Labour" at first - but then I wondered if the word "permitted" went with that?

Hmm, if hard Labour - I guess it could depend on who was being permitted - maybe it wasn't Robert being permitted - but his immediate superior being permitted by his superior to assign the said H.L

Cheers
AMBLY
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

"Now that we're all here, I'm not sure if we're all there...."

 Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz
 Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace
    ~Benito Juarez (1806-1872)

Offline Colin Cruddace

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,557
  • Looking for GG Grandad... Must have GSH
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 17:15 BST (UK) »
Hi all,

Thanks Ambly, DW and James for your input.

Robert is certainly the Robert Renwick Cruddace registered in Middlesbrough in 1885 so, if anything, he understated his age as he would be nearly 20. In the 1901 census he is at home with his parents and is listed as a Plasterer's Helper. On his enlistment he claims to be a bricklayer so I'm now wondering if that required an apprenticeship which was still in force. He married in 1907 but I don't have the certificate. In all of his children's baptisms he is a Shunter for the NER or a Railway Guard.

The entry for 7 days looks more like I H.L than 1 H.L and I read it that it had been approved at the top. Could there be different degrees of H.L and his was Intense, or something like that? Another possibility could be J H.L, Jail or Jankers?

Thanks for your comments,
Colin

Offline trish18

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 317
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #6 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 18:00 BST (UK) »
Hi Colin,

I may be barking up the wrong tree but I had a very similar problem when I obtained army service records that stated fraudulent enlistment. I'll try to be as brief as possible in case I am completely off track!

When I saw the service records of the chap I was researching there was another set of records attached to the end for a completely different person (or so I thought). It appears that my chap had enlisted in the foot regiment but decided he wanted to join the horse artillery instead, so went awol and after a short period of time, joined a different regiment under a false name & address & was caught out after a short period of time! He was sent to Durham jail for this & the only reason I found this out was that it coincided with the 1881 census, which is where I found him. I would never have put two & two together if not for this, as I thought that somebody else's record was attached to the end of my chap's in error!

This may be something or nothing to look for, but thought I would mention it, just in case.

Regards

Trish
Carroll - Monmouthshire/Glamorganshire/Cork
Hooley - Tattenhall, Cheshire
Lloyd - Gresford, Denbighshire
Platt - Wrexham, Denbighshire
Sullivan- Monmouthshire/Glamorganshire/Cork

Offline km1971

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 22:05 BST (UK) »
It is IHL, and it means 'imprisonment with hard labour'.

You will probably never know for certain, but a likely explanation will be because he lied about not having been imprisoned by the civil powers. If he was underage or claimed either as an apprentice or by another regiment it would say so, and he would have been discharged straight away. The irony is that he was discharged not because he had lied the normal punishment was 7 days IHL - but because he kept going absent. There was no real excuse for that as he could have joined the Volunteers or Militia to see if he would take to army life.

Ken

Offline Colin Cruddace

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,557
  • Looking for GG Grandad... Must have GSH
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 - Fraudulent Enlistment... or not?
« Reply #8 on: Tuesday 12 October 10 23:31 BST (UK) »
Hi Trish, I had the same thought about having previous service, but then surely these records would have some mention of it.

I think Ken has hit the nail on the head with Robert having previous form, he sounds like that sort of character, and he probably didn't like taking orders. I wondered when I was going to find the black-sheep of the family, and this might be him  ???

Well.... he was born in Middlesbrough so that would seem to confirm it  ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) (local joke)

Thanks to all for your input, it is appreciated.
Colin