Breach of the Registration Act.

Items of general interest

Moderators: Global Moderators, Pandabean

Anne H
Global Moderator
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by Anne H » Wed Aug 12, 2020 6:10 pm

Goodness, that is confusing. I think I'll have to read that again! #-o

[cheers]
Anne

WilmaM
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:46 am
Location: Falkirk area

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by WilmaM » Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:23 am

And what do you know, Scotland's People has no trace of a George White Jackson ANYWHERE!
Saying that I can't find his supposed mother either using the info into the article or a death of a Helen Adams nee Jackson.
Guess the aliens have been at it again [alien]

SarahND
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:47 am
Location: France

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by SarahND » Thu Aug 13, 2020 11:42 am

:lol: Good sleuthing, Wilma! [scotland-flag]

Currie
Posts: 3831
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
Location: Australia

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by Currie » Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:37 am

Thanks S, M, A, & W.

It looks like I’ve been down this Breach of the Registration Act track before, in 2012. I had completely forgotten. It seems like yesterday. Well not really, because I can remember yesterday. That’s eight years ago. I’m sure I was sixteen years younger then. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17073


The next BOTRA story is from the Evening Telegraph, (Dundee), Monday, July 1, 1935, and is about a Dundee man with a conscience. Names have been changed to protect the innocent, and also the guilty.


False Statement Preys on Dundee Man’s Mind.
Offence Voluntarily Disclosed After Four Years.
Complications that Followed Alleged Bigamous Marriage.

How a false statement made in registering the birth of a child four years ago had preyed upon a Dundee man’s mind leading him to disclose his offence voluntarily after that lapse of time, was described at Dundee Sheriff Court to-day.

A remarkable story of the complications which followed an alleged bigamous marriage in Glasgow was told by accused’s agent, and in view of the extenuating circumstances Sheriff Malcolm modified the penalty to a fine of 15s.

Accused, J*** R*** B*******, 3 A******* Street, Dundee, a young man of smart appearance, pleaded guilty on an indictment of H.M. Advocate, to having on June 18, 1931, in the office at 93 Commercial Street, Dundee, then occupied by W. H. Phillip, registrar for the district of St Clement, when registering the birth of a male child, knowingly and wilfully made a false statement that he and E******* M*****, the mother of the child, were married in Glasgow on July 2, 1929.

The offence was a contravention of the Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854.

Married in Glasgow.

Mr Alex. Gilruth, solicitor, said that while accused had pleaded guilty to that very grave charge, there were facts which made it very much less serious than it at first appeared to be.

In or about 1928, accused married a woman in Glasgow who represented to him that she was unmarried. They subsequently went to reside with her mother, who stated to the accused that she hoped he was not taking her daughter seriously, as she was already a married woman.

Accused challenged the daughter, and she admitted that when she married him she was already a married woman living apart from her husband, who was still alive.

In reply to Sheriff Malcolm, Mr Gilruth said that this was under as year after the alleged marriage.

Both mother and daughter, he continued, on their knees implored accused not to report the matter to the authorities, and out of pity for them, and particularly out of pity for the mother in her great distress, he promised not to do so. At the moment, however, there was a prosecution pending against the woman for bigamy.

“By Habit and Repute.”

Accused subsequently came to Dundee, where he became friendly with the mother of the child in respect of whose birth the registration offence was committed. —

Their intention was to establish a marriage “by habit and repute.”

He did not become married to her on account of the woman in Glasgow.

Nevertheless they held themselves out as husband and wife. When the child was born accused went to register the birth. He had never previously had to register a child, and he had not thought of the particulars he would have to furnish.

In particular it did not occur to him that he would have to give details about the marriage.

He gave correct answers as regards the birth and the parentage of the child, and in reply to the registrar's question as to whether he was married he answered in the affirmative, because he believed himself to be married to the mother of the child by habit and repute.

There was a number of members of the public in the registrar’s office at the time, who heard him state that he was married to the mother of the child.

They also heard him asked where he was married. He did not want to bring disgrace upon the mother by publicly admitting that it was a marriage by habit and repute, so, unfortunately, he made the statement mentioned in the charge.

Easiest Way.

Mr Gilruth—Yes. It was not a premeditated dodge to deceive the registrar, but simply the easiest way, and what seemed to the accused at the time—the only way—out of an embarrassing situation.

That occurred in June, 1931, Mr Gilruth continued, and it had preyed on accused's mind ever since then. In May of this year, entirely voluntarily, he returned to the registrar’s office, and himself disclosed the offence he had committed four years before.

He had never been in trouble before, and although he was in a mess now he meant to endeavour to make good. It was his intention, when this matter had been disposed of, and after his previous marriage had been annulled, to marry — regularly — the mother of the child.

Sheriff Malcolm—Does the previous marriage require annulment? It is void, is it not, this previous form of marriage?

Mr Gilruth — No charge has yet been proved against the other woman.

Sheriff and Marriage.

Sheriff Malcolm—There are no proceedings required to annul that so-called first marriage. It is null itself. All the same, I think he is quite wise to wait until the bigamy proceedings are over.

“I don’t know,” Sheriff Malcolm continued. “if he knows very much about the law of marriage, although he speaks learnedly about habit and repute and so forth. He was free all along to marry this woman, Why did he choose ‘habit and repute,’ instead of one of the other forms, such as exchange of consent.

Mr Gilruth—Among certain classes it is the usual form to adopt.

Sheriff Malcolm said that the setting up of a marriage by habit and repute took a very long time. The courts would not look at it unless it was of very long standing—perhaps ten years or so. He did not think he had ever heard of a case where the parties had deliberately come together with the view of setting up a marriage by habit and repute. It was generally an ex post facto business, looking to the past.

Mr Gilruth said that in this case the mother of the child dropped her own name and started using the accused’s name, and they held themselves out as husband and wife. But for the promise he had made to the mother of the woman he had previously ‘married’ not to disclose her daughter's bigamy, he would have married the woman regularly.

Sheriff Malcolm—But he could have done so and still not disclose what was past.

Mr Gilruth added that accused, alter being unemployed for about two years, obtained regular employment about the middle of May this year, and was earning a good wage. His employers spoke satisfactorily of him, and still did, but when the present charge became known to them he was dismissed.

Sheriff Malcolm—They dismissed him because this child had been born?

Mr Gilruth—No; because the indictment had been served on him.

Sheriff Malcolm—They have dismissed him because he has committed a breach of the Registration Act. That seems very hard.

Mr Donald J. Henry, procurator fiscal, agreed that the facts of the case were as stated by Mr Gilruth, and that accused’s intention was to marry the girl. Accused’s character was good, and he (Mr Henry) was willing that his Lordship should take a lenient view.

Lenient View.

Sheriff Malcolm emphasised that the serious aspect of the case was the false statement made to the registrar, which went into the register, and if not corrected, remained there for all time, thus making
the register incorrect. Until he had heard the facts it looked to him as if accused's case would require to be seriously dealt with; he had sent people to prison for offences of that description.

Mr Gilruth, however, had made a very excellent statement on accused’s behalf, confirmed by the Fiscal, and that assisted his Lordship to take a more lenient view. While he was not going to condone the giving of wilfully false information, even in circumstances which were extenuating, he would deal gently with accused and impose a fine of 15s.




I’ll try to round up a few more stories for next week and then call it quits. Maybe after that some Scottish scandals. Graveyard scandals can be interesting, about how some dear departed didn’t get to rest in peace for very long at all. But maybe that would be a bit too depressing?

All the best,
Alan

Anne H
Global Moderator
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by Anne H » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:57 am

Lied to save others from being embarrassed and because he was an honest man reported himself. Now, that's a decent man, Alan and glad they were somewhat lenient on him.

Looking forward to reading the stories on graveyard scandals.

[cheers]
Anne

SarahND
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:47 am
Location: France

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by SarahND » Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:01 am

Anne! How ghoulish you are! :lol:

[cheers]

Sarah

WilmaM
Posts: 1683
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:46 am
Location: Falkirk area

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by WilmaM » Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:21 am

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
That chap got himself into quite some tangle - but he did have the decency to try to right the wrongs.

I think we all have more than a few " contraventions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act, 1854."
with fictitious marriage dates and locations!
Most are guilty of mere forgetfulness I'd imagine.

These tales bring a bit of colour to the past.

garibaldired
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: Dorset, UK

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by garibaldired » Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:35 pm

Oh my, Alan. What a story!

Where do you find them?!
I too will look forward to the graveyard scandals :lol:

Best wishes,
Meg

garibaldired
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:42 pm
Location: Dorset, UK

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by garibaldired » Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:38 pm

Not sure why I have duplicate posts :roll:
nor why I'm unable to delete one :roll:

Meg

SarahND
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:47 am
Location: France

Re: Breach of the Registration Act.

Post by SarahND » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:37 pm

Just deleted it for you Meg :D

[scotland-flag]

Sarah

Post Reply