Page 1 of 1
John Logie 1891 Census no image .....
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:38 pm
John Logie age 62 shows up in the 1891 census index in Paisley, but sadly there is no image. I was hoping to find out whether he and his wife Mary were living in the same house (the index at least shows they were not). John committed suicide in 1892 in Paisley at which time he was living in the Model Lodginghouse (I assume in Paisley) and I wondered if that's where he was in 1891.
Does anyone know why an image would not be available? Is it likely be available online at NRH?
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:29 pm
The story is that the image might be "unreadable" (but obviously someone read it!). However, when I was at NRH I looked up a death cert that said "no image" on SP and there it was, big as life and twice as readable
So I don't know what the story is. If it's like mine, it's readable but for some reason not up. Certainly worth looking!
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:36 pm
Thanks Sarah - hope to make a visit soon.
Pinkshoes (pink wellies fur the snaw)
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:45 pm
pinkshoes wrote:Thanks Sarah - hope to make a visit soon.
pinkshoes wrote: (pink wellies fur the snaw)
Cute! I was going to ask if you had got any new shoes lately, but restrained myself
Sarah with the plain old green wellies for the rain today
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:31 pm
On doing a search for surname Logie (no first name) in Paisley, the following results are found.
1 1891 LOGIE JOHN M 62 PAISLEY /RENFREW 573/00 0B2/00 003 No Image ORDER
2 1891 LOGIE MAGGIE F 28 PAISLEY /RENFREW 573/00 026/00 024 VIEW (5 CREDITS) ORDER
3 1891 LOGIE MAGGIE F 15 PAISLEY /RENFREW 573/00 097/00 023 VIEW (5 CREDITS) ORDER
4 1891 LOGIE MARY F 57 PAISLEY /RENFREW 573/00 097/00 023 VIEW (5 CREDITS) ORDER
5 1891 LOGIE WILLIAM M 28 PAISLEY /RENFREW 573/00 026/00 024 VIEW (5 CREDITS) ORDER
On looking at the GROS data, the five Logies fall into three groups, presumably three households. These are found on the following enumeration districts and pages.
ED 26, Page 24 (Maggie & William)
ED 97, page 23 (Maggie & Mary)
ED 112, Page 3 (John) [ref 0B2 translates to 112]
There is a problem with the indexing of Enumeration Districts greater than 99 on ScotlandsPeople for the 1891 and 1901 censuses. This results in the images not being available on SP for these districts. This problem does not exist on the DIGROS system in New Register House or Park Circus. So the image would be viewable in either of these locations. This problem is on ScotlandsPeople's "to do list" for solving. So hopefully the image will become available on SP in the not too distant future (no tentative date on offer).
The index tells us, there is no other Logie surname on that page, or even in that Enumeration Book, so assuming there is no mis-indexing, then John is not with his wife - unless of course her maiden surname was given on the census (some did that).
All the best,
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:25 pm
Thanks for that Andrew. I think Maggie & Mary will be John's wife Mary and their daughter - ages are correct and the rest of the family would have been old enough to be married. Though you're right, she gave her maiden name in 1881, even though the children were Logies. (John was elsewhere on that census too).
Maggie & William I'm not sure - could be related, maybe not.
The John on his own looks like he may be the sad soul who ended up under a train
It's not a close rellie, so will wait till later in the year when I go to Edinburgh (I just wondered if I could sort out when/why they separated), and thanks Andrew for explaining the issue of indexing.
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:53 pm
I'm planning to go to the Mitchell Library in Glasgow on Saturday to do some work on my Lanarkshire miners and they've got (I think) Census records for Renfrewshire. I'll have a look and let you know. It's the least I can do for the help you gave me with the same family
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:10 pm
Hi Brian - that's fabulous, thank you so much. I'll give you the lowdown on which John Logie I'm on about - after all he'll be your 3rd great uncle fourteen times removed as well