CRIME DIDN’T PAY AT FORT WILLIAM.
In 1871 Flora Mitchell, a school teacher, was accused of falsifying her age on a Census document. As a consequence she was stood as a prisoner in the dock and convicted accordingly. The sentence probably indicates that the sheriff wasn’t a genealogist. But was she guilty of the crime or a victim of rough justice. Why was the ancient session-clerk produced in court but not, it seems, the ancient session-book. And why does the reporter occasionally refer to the felon as Miss M’Pherson. Read on.
Glasgow Herald, 3 August, 1871.
CURIOUS CASE UNDER THE CENSUS ACT.
A LADY CONVICTED FOR UNDERSTATING HER AGE.
At a Criminal Court, held at Fort-William, on Tuesday —Sheriff Fraser on the bench— Flora Mitchell, teacher, Ballachulish, in the county of Inverness, was placed at the bar, charged, at the instance of the Procurator-Fiscal, with having made a false entry in the schedule she returned to the enumerator appointed in the district, on the 3d day of April last. Accused pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. M’Kenzie, writer. Duncan M’Pherson, schoolmaster, Onich, said that in his capacity as Registrar for the district of Ballachulish and Corran of Argour, he conducted the taking of the census for that district in April last. Alex Cameron was the enumerator he appointed for the district in which Miss M’Pherson resided. The schedule shown him was brought to him by Cameron, along with some 60 more. He considered it his duty to look over them all to see if they were properly filled. In looking over Miss M’Pherson’s schedule, he found that her age was put down at 29 years.
As she was personally known to himself he judged by her appearance that her age was much understated. (Laughter.) He had a conversation with the enumerator about the matter a few days after the 3d of April, and as the enumerator was of the same opinion, witness wrote to the Session-Clerk of Strontian for an extract of her birth out of the session book. In return he received an extract of her baptism, from which it appeared that she was baptised on the 10th day of February, 1827, or 44 years ago. (Laughter.) Witness then communicated with the Registrar-General, who directed him to report the case to the Procurator Fiscal. The witness was cross-examined at great length by Mr M’Kenzie, who endeavoured to show that Mr M’Pherson was actuated throughout by private malice against the accused and that he had no authority to make the present investigation—that if any errors had been committed the enumerators were the proper parties to correct them. Witness, however, denied that the proceedings were instituted through any private animosity on his part.
Alexander Cameron, the enumerator, identified the schedule shown him as the one he received from the accused. It occurred to him that she was older than 29. Dougald M’Phee, registrar and session-clerk for the parish of Strontian, said that he was 99 years of age. He acted as session-clerk for the parish of Strontian for upwards of 60 years. He knew the Mitchell family. The document he produced was a true and correct extract of Flora Mitchell’s baptism, taken from the session-book. She was baptised on the 10th of February, 1827. The entry in the book was made by himself. In cross-examination Mr M’Kenzie showed witness an extract he gave in 1864, in which it was stated that Flora Mitchell was born in February, 1839. Witness admitted that the signature was his, but he could not say who wrote the alleged extract. He was quite sure that it was not a true one, but he would swear that the baptism extract he produced was correct. He recollected a member of the Mitchell family having applied for an extract some years ago. The Fiscal (Mr M’Laren) then addressed the Sheriff and craved a conviction.
Mr M’Kenzie, for the accused, held that the prosecutor was bound to produce evidence as to the birth, but this he had failed to do; not a word in the documents on which he relied referred to a birth, but to baptism. He referred to the extract of birth given by the session clerk in 1864 as a correct one, and he now came forward with a baptism certificate and said that the former one was not true. How could they, then, depend on books kept in such a manner as this? The Sheriff found the charge proven. He was bound to take the session book as evidence, especially when it was sworn to by the party who made the entry. Although the extract referred to a baptism, he (the Sheriff) understood that it was invariably the custom not to baptise children until they were born. (Laughter.) Therefore it only made the case worse, because she might not be baptised on the day on which she was born. He could not believe that a person occupying the position the prisoner occupied in society could make a mistake of fifteen years in stating her age. He would however, inflict the lowest penalty that the law allowed, and accordingly fined the accused in the sum of £1 sterling. The court-room was crowded during the trial.
Alan
Crime didn’t pay at Fort William.
Moderators: Global Moderators, Russell
-
Currie
- Posts: 3924
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
- Location: Australia
-
Anne H
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:12 pm
- Location: Scotland
Hi Alan,
What a great find...the kind of thing I love to find, but poor woman!
So, Duncan M’Pherson, schoolmaster, thought it his duty to look over all the schedules, did he? Sounds more like a vendetta to me...probably out to get poor Miss Mitchell or M'Pherson...maybe he was a jilted lover!
I think all the sleuths of TS need to find out if there was any relationship between these two and maybe bring some justice for the poor woman
Regards,
Anne H
What a great find...the kind of thing I love to find, but poor woman!
So, Duncan M’Pherson, schoolmaster, thought it his duty to look over all the schedules, did he? Sounds more like a vendetta to me...probably out to get poor Miss Mitchell or M'Pherson...maybe he was a jilted lover!
I think all the sleuths of TS need to find out if there was any relationship between these two and maybe bring some justice for the poor woman
Regards,
Anne H
-
AnneM
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:51 pm
- Location: Aberdeenshire
-
sheilajim
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:42 pm
- Location: san clemente california
Hi Alan
This is so funny, except for the poor woman. What is wrong with a woman lying about her age!
Very few of my relatives, both men and women gave their correct age until they were well over sixty. Were the people of Australia any different from the people in Scotland?
What a wonderful find that was, but what a waste of time and money to have a trial over such a thing. I think that something else must have been going on, it does sound like a personal vendetta.
Regards
This is so funny, except for the poor woman. What is wrong with a woman lying about her age!
Very few of my relatives, both men and women gave their correct age until they were well over sixty. Were the people of Australia any different from the people in Scotland?What a wonderful find that was, but what a waste of time and money to have a trial over such a thing. I think that something else must have been going on, it does sound like a personal vendetta.
Regards
Sheila
-
Anne H
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:12 pm
- Location: Scotland
-
Currie
- Posts: 3924
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 3:20 am
- Location: Australia
My Great- grandmother took 10 years off her age when she married GGF and when she died GGF obviously didn’t know. I would say she would have misrepresented her age on two local census forms but there is no way to check. She met a fiery and painfully slow death 50 years before I was born but I don't think that had anything to do with it.
I think Flora got a raw deal, whether guilty or innocent things should not have been allowed to progress to the stage they did. The case rested on the testimony of a 99 year old Session-clerk and there was clear evidence that should have raised doubts as to his competency. Flora’s lawyer didn’t seem to push very hard at all and maybe that was intentional in case it was their luck they were pushing.
A few days after the trial there was an editorial as follows:
Glasgow Herald, Tuesday, August 8, 1871
The secrets of the Census sometimes ooze out, and make us sigh or smile, as the case may be. We reported one little incident from Fort-William the other day, which may be regarded as merely an instance of a numerous class. It might have been thought that no lady living under the shadow of Ben Nevis would care to give an incorrect return of her age to the Census enumerators. In cities, where people live so close to each other, where they are wrapt up in a delicate net-work of fashion and custom, where appearances are of infinite value, and where the approach of "uncertain age," if seen or made known, would be destructive of many expectations, it might appear natural for the gentler sex to take every excusable means to preserve for themselves the reputation of youth. But in a Highland wilderness, far removed from fashion and the popular vanities, where people live widely separated, and where Nature is perpetually preaching truth and truthfulness of conduct, such amiable inaccuracy seems less to be expected. Alas! man is man, and woman is woman, all the world over, as much at Ballachulish as at Glasgow; and the smallest village is just an epitome of the biggest city, in its hopes, its ambitions, and its fears.
It appears that Miss Flora Mitchell, teacher, Ballachulish, returned her age at 29 instead of 44. When Mr Duncan M’Pherson, schoolmaster at Onich, who is also Registrar for the district of Ballachulish and Corran of Ardgour, in going over the enumeration papers, saw at what age Miss Mitchell had returned herself, it struck him that she had committed a mistake. He made an investigation, found his fears confirmed, and communicated with the Registrar-General, who directed him to report the case to the Procurator-Fiscal. That gentleman, of course, charged the lady, before Sheriff Fraser, Fort-William, with making a false entry of her age in the Census schedule. In his evidence before the Sheriff, Mr M’Pherson intimated that, being personally known to Miss Mitchell, he judged from her appearance that her age was much under-stated. His impression was strengthened by the opinion of Alexander Cameron, the enumerator employed on the occasion. In this predicament, M’Pherson felt himself bound to do justice to his countrymen and the Government. So he wrote to the Session-Clerk of Strontian, where Miss Mitchell seems to have been born, for an extract of her birth out of the Session book. Instead of receiving the date of the lady's birth, he was furnished with an extract of her baptism, which took place on the 10th February, 1827, or 44 years ago. Mr Dugald M’Phee, Registrar and Session-Clerk for the parish of Strontian, was examined, and stated that he was 99 years of age, that he had acted as Session-Clerk for upwards of 60 years, that he knew the Mitchell family, that he had made an entry of Flora Mitchell’s baptism in the Session book in 1827, and that, therefore, the extract he had sent to M’Pherson was true and cornet.
At this point, however, the case becomes slightly complicated. M’Phee admitted that he had given to some person in 1864 an extract in which it was stated that Flora Mitchell was born in 1839. He could not tell who wrote the extract, but the signature was certainly his. Nor could he tell who got the paper, although he remembered some one belonging to the Mitchell family applying for an extract years ago. M’Phee, of course, swore that the paper certifying that Flora Mitchell was born in 1839 was not a true one, but that the extract of her baptism has correct. Mr M’Kenzie, counsel for the defence, made the most of this apparent collision of facts. It was the prosecutor’s duty to produce evidence of Miss Mitchell’s birth, instead of which he merely proved what appeared to be her baptism. If the extract of birth given in 1864 was correct, the extract of baptism was wrong; if the latter was correct, what was the meaning of the former? How could anybody depend on the Session books of Strontian?'
The Sheriff found the charge proven, and inflicted the lowest penalty—£1 sterling. In giving sentence, his Lordship said that “he was bound to take the Session book as evidence, especially when sworn to by the party who made the entry. Although the extract referred to a baptism, he understood that it was invariably the custom not to baptise children until they were born.” This fact, which is contrary to well authenticated statements made by the Rev. Lawrence Sterne, would make Miss Mitchell a few days older. The Sheriff could not believe that any person in the position of the accused could make a mistake of fifteen years in stating her age. The law at Fort-William has been vindicated, and the Registrar of Ballachulish has obtained a triumph! We suppose that it is all right. Truth is best, and laws are meant to be obeyed. It is doubtful, however, whether this particular case will have any appreciable effect on the accuracy of the next Census; and it is reasonable to hope that there are a few Registrars who would have hesitated before troubling a lady about a bagatelle of 15 years.
Alan
I think Flora got a raw deal, whether guilty or innocent things should not have been allowed to progress to the stage they did. The case rested on the testimony of a 99 year old Session-clerk and there was clear evidence that should have raised doubts as to his competency. Flora’s lawyer didn’t seem to push very hard at all and maybe that was intentional in case it was their luck they were pushing.
A few days after the trial there was an editorial as follows:
Glasgow Herald, Tuesday, August 8, 1871
The secrets of the Census sometimes ooze out, and make us sigh or smile, as the case may be. We reported one little incident from Fort-William the other day, which may be regarded as merely an instance of a numerous class. It might have been thought that no lady living under the shadow of Ben Nevis would care to give an incorrect return of her age to the Census enumerators. In cities, where people live so close to each other, where they are wrapt up in a delicate net-work of fashion and custom, where appearances are of infinite value, and where the approach of "uncertain age," if seen or made known, would be destructive of many expectations, it might appear natural for the gentler sex to take every excusable means to preserve for themselves the reputation of youth. But in a Highland wilderness, far removed from fashion and the popular vanities, where people live widely separated, and where Nature is perpetually preaching truth and truthfulness of conduct, such amiable inaccuracy seems less to be expected. Alas! man is man, and woman is woman, all the world over, as much at Ballachulish as at Glasgow; and the smallest village is just an epitome of the biggest city, in its hopes, its ambitions, and its fears.
It appears that Miss Flora Mitchell, teacher, Ballachulish, returned her age at 29 instead of 44. When Mr Duncan M’Pherson, schoolmaster at Onich, who is also Registrar for the district of Ballachulish and Corran of Ardgour, in going over the enumeration papers, saw at what age Miss Mitchell had returned herself, it struck him that she had committed a mistake. He made an investigation, found his fears confirmed, and communicated with the Registrar-General, who directed him to report the case to the Procurator-Fiscal. That gentleman, of course, charged the lady, before Sheriff Fraser, Fort-William, with making a false entry of her age in the Census schedule. In his evidence before the Sheriff, Mr M’Pherson intimated that, being personally known to Miss Mitchell, he judged from her appearance that her age was much under-stated. His impression was strengthened by the opinion of Alexander Cameron, the enumerator employed on the occasion. In this predicament, M’Pherson felt himself bound to do justice to his countrymen and the Government. So he wrote to the Session-Clerk of Strontian, where Miss Mitchell seems to have been born, for an extract of her birth out of the Session book. Instead of receiving the date of the lady's birth, he was furnished with an extract of her baptism, which took place on the 10th February, 1827, or 44 years ago. Mr Dugald M’Phee, Registrar and Session-Clerk for the parish of Strontian, was examined, and stated that he was 99 years of age, that he had acted as Session-Clerk for upwards of 60 years, that he knew the Mitchell family, that he had made an entry of Flora Mitchell’s baptism in the Session book in 1827, and that, therefore, the extract he had sent to M’Pherson was true and cornet.
At this point, however, the case becomes slightly complicated. M’Phee admitted that he had given to some person in 1864 an extract in which it was stated that Flora Mitchell was born in 1839. He could not tell who wrote the extract, but the signature was certainly his. Nor could he tell who got the paper, although he remembered some one belonging to the Mitchell family applying for an extract years ago. M’Phee, of course, swore that the paper certifying that Flora Mitchell was born in 1839 was not a true one, but that the extract of her baptism has correct. Mr M’Kenzie, counsel for the defence, made the most of this apparent collision of facts. It was the prosecutor’s duty to produce evidence of Miss Mitchell’s birth, instead of which he merely proved what appeared to be her baptism. If the extract of birth given in 1864 was correct, the extract of baptism was wrong; if the latter was correct, what was the meaning of the former? How could anybody depend on the Session books of Strontian?'
The Sheriff found the charge proven, and inflicted the lowest penalty—£1 sterling. In giving sentence, his Lordship said that “he was bound to take the Session book as evidence, especially when sworn to by the party who made the entry. Although the extract referred to a baptism, he understood that it was invariably the custom not to baptise children until they were born.” This fact, which is contrary to well authenticated statements made by the Rev. Lawrence Sterne, would make Miss Mitchell a few days older. The Sheriff could not believe that any person in the position of the accused could make a mistake of fifteen years in stating her age. The law at Fort-William has been vindicated, and the Registrar of Ballachulish has obtained a triumph! We suppose that it is all right. Truth is best, and laws are meant to be obeyed. It is doubtful, however, whether this particular case will have any appreciable effect on the accuracy of the next Census; and it is reasonable to hope that there are a few Registrars who would have hesitated before troubling a lady about a bagatelle of 15 years.
Alan
-
LesleyB
- Posts: 8184
- Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
- Location: Scotland
-
AnneM
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1587
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:51 pm
- Location: Aberdeenshire
This reminds me of a story told by a colleague who comes from an African country where an older generation of people, born in rural areas, may not have any documentation showing their age.
A lady who worked for my colleague's parents appears as a teenager in their wedding photographs. This happy event took place some 50 years ago. Recently a census was taken and the enumerator came to the house and asked this lady her age. "30" she replied. "Come now mum, " said the young man "Can we not add a few years here."
"All right then, 35" replied the enterprising lady.
"Can we not add a few more, Mum." pleaded the young man.
"No", she was emphatic, "That is it. I am 35"
When he had gone she asked indignantly of her employers, "How does he know how old I am? Did he give birth to me?"
That, I think is unanswerable!!
Anne
A lady who worked for my colleague's parents appears as a teenager in their wedding photographs. This happy event took place some 50 years ago. Recently a census was taken and the enumerator came to the house and asked this lady her age. "30" she replied. "Come now mum, " said the young man "Can we not add a few years here."
"All right then, 35" replied the enterprising lady.
"Can we not add a few more, Mum." pleaded the young man.
"No", she was emphatic, "That is it. I am 35"
When he had gone she asked indignantly of her employers, "How does he know how old I am? Did he give birth to me?"
That, I think is unanswerable!!
Anne
Anne
Researching M(a)cKenzie, McCammond, McLachlan, Kerr, Assur, Renton, Redpath, Ferguson, Shedden, Also Oswald, Le/assels/Lascelles, Bonning just for starters
Researching M(a)cKenzie, McCammond, McLachlan, Kerr, Assur, Renton, Redpath, Ferguson, Shedden, Also Oswald, Le/assels/Lascelles, Bonning just for starters
-
Morag
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 9:55 am
- Location: Fife, Scotland
I have very elusive McPhees from Strontian - so thought that the good and honest Dugald may hold the key - but I cannot find a deah for him anywhere - it surely can't be much after 1871 !
I am looking for the parents of a Janet McPhee who married John Farquhar in 1840 in Neilston. In censuses she gives her birth as being Strontian in abt 1821.She died in 1899 in Barrhead and only her father was listed as John. From her children's names , her mother may have been Sarah.
In 1841 in Stontian there was
John McPhee 75, Sarah McPhee 55, Bell Mcpherson 8
In 1851 in Strontian there was
John McPhee 71, Sarah McPhee 70 , Bell McPherson gr dau 17
I don't know what punishment they would have been given for these ages !
I can find nothing more.
In 1891 in Strontian there are 2 Bella McPhersons both age 57 - one is married and is now Young - but they live next door to each other. I can't find a death for either of them.
I feel that if I can track down Bell , there might be some information to be found about her parents and then I may be able to claim this family.
Any help gratefully received
Morag
I am looking for the parents of a Janet McPhee who married John Farquhar in 1840 in Neilston. In censuses she gives her birth as being Strontian in abt 1821.She died in 1899 in Barrhead and only her father was listed as John. From her children's names , her mother may have been Sarah.
In 1841 in Stontian there was
John McPhee 75, Sarah McPhee 55, Bell Mcpherson 8
In 1851 in Strontian there was
John McPhee 71, Sarah McPhee 70 , Bell McPherson gr dau 17
I don't know what punishment they would have been given for these ages !
I can find nothing more.
In 1891 in Strontian there are 2 Bella McPhersons both age 57 - one is married and is now Young - but they live next door to each other. I can't find a death for either of them.
I feel that if I can track down Bell , there might be some information to be found about her parents and then I may be able to claim this family.
Any help gratefully received
Morag
Searching mainly Stirlingshire - Hastings,Nicol,Honeyman,Nisbet,Tough,Miller - among others