How did he 'get away with it'?

[JackyHSF]

Hi Everyone

I'm hoping that someone will be able to give me a pointer on where to look next to try to unravel a bit of a mystery. Sorry, I've a feeling this is going to be a long post, but I hope you'll bear with me. The story so far ....

I was lucky enough to find some papers in the NAS relating to my Spence family in Perth.

My GGGG Uncle Peter was comitted to prison on 30th October 1830 as part of a gang of teenage boys who had been stealing from various locals (sometimes the same victim more than once) over six months or so. For example, they “did violently wreck and feloniously break into and enter a shed or warehouse situated on the West side of the Watergate of Perth in the Middle Church Parish of Perth then in occupancy of Margaret Sommerville or McKay, stoneware merchant, widow of the late Alexander McKay”.

Although there were about six boys in the gang, “the said Peter Spence and John Jones are both habile and repute common thieves and have been previously convicted to theft.” Peter had previously been confined for either 16 days or a month (both figures are given) for theft. He compeared on 15th November 1830 and admitted to breaking, entering, stealing and selling on some of the stolen goods.

My GGG Grandfather, his brother Andrew, also compeared on 5th November to refute a charge of having received stolen goods from his brother. The language is stiff and formal, but I love the way his tone of righteous indignation comes through as he has to explain how he came by various items that had been taken from his home as possible 'evidence'.

Anyhow. Unfortunately, the court case records weren't part of the bundle and the local archives at Perth don't have them either. So I searched through the local newspapers on film (going boggle eyed in the process) and found the report of the Circuit Court of Justiciary in Perth on 12th April 1831 in the Perth Courier. Yippee!

However, the article raised more questions than it answered.

John Jones, the leader of the gang was awarded a sentence of 14 years transportation. James Luke and James Dunbar were awarded transportation for 7 years (this despite the fact that James Dunbar had been recommended for King's evidence according to the NAS papers). James McPherson (apprentice shoemaker to my GGGG Grandfather) was imprisoned for six months.

In the paragraph about James Luke and James Dunbar it states "This indictment also contained the same and other charges as against John Jones (the previous panel) and Peter Spence, who was not arraigned."

Now why in heaven's name did he 'get off'? He was 17 years old at the time (although he told the sheriff he was 15). Three years later he turns up in the OPRs in Edinburgh, as a shoemaker (the family trade) marrying 17 year old Mary Soutter. Thereafter he returned to Perth and apparently led a blameless life until he died there in 1887.

Was it possible for someone to 'intervene' on his behalf? The only possible candidate I can think of is my GGG Grandfather's new father-in-law. Andrew married Isabella McDonald in April 1830 and her father, James McDonald, was a burgess in Perth. Would this position have been one with enough influence to get the charges dropped (especially as this wasn't the first time Peter had been a thief)?

I'd be very grateful for any suggestions as to how the system of justice might have operated.

Oh, and by the way - what were "tinnies, or children's pans"? My best guess is that young children needed something cheap, but sturdy for their food (especially at the 'throw it all over the place and wouldn't it be fun for the plate to follow it' stage).

Regards

Jacky

[paddyscar]

Hi Jacky:

That's a great look at the past! Hope someone can help you with how he managed not to be locked away.

According to the Dictionary of Scots Language:

TIN, tinnie, tinny , tinnikin: 1. A small tin mug or drinking vessel, esp. one used by children. Gen.Sc. Hence tinniefu, a mugful, tinny -kit, a tin bowl , tinnie-pannie, a child's mug .
*Sc. 1861 E. B. Ramsay Reminisc. II. 61:
A kiss and a tinniefu o' cauld water maks a gey wersh breakfast

Frances

[emanday]

Hi Jacky:

That's a great look at the past! Hope someone can help you with how he managed not to be locked away.

According to the Dictionary of Scots Language:

TIN, tinnie, tinny , tinnikin: 1. A small tin mug or drinking vessel, esp. one used by children. Gen.Sc. Hence tinniefu, a mugful, tinny -kit, a tin bowl , tinnie-pannie, a child's mug .
*Sc. 1861 E. B. Ramsay Reminisc. II. 61:
A kiss and a tinniefu o' cauld water maks a gey wersh breakfast

Frances

Now that's a real blast from the past. I remember my Gran setting up the tinnies and packs of "pieces" (sandwiches) for my 5 uncles. The tinnies were only food cans with two holes at the top with a string handle. Gosh, I can even remember the taste of the very strong tea they used to make in them, and trying to drink it without getting any tea leaves in my mouth. Nae tea strainers oan buildin sites

[AnneM]

That's a mystery Jackie.

He admitted the offence and yet does not seem to have been tried if that is the same set of offences that you had originally. Could the later trial have been for another incident or was he the only one who pled guilty and therefore was dealt with at the time of the original diet, perhaps a bit more leniently?

Anne

[JackyHSF]

Hi Frances and Mary

Thanks very much for the insights into 'tinnies' - apparently the gang had stolen some of these, along with tea cannisters, candlesticks, 5 stone of rags worth 5/-, a woman's pocket, some money, sheepkins, 'sticks of black sugar or liquorice' and more.

Hi Anne

Now you've set me thinking, it does strike my as a little strange that only the depositions from Peter and Andrew Spence seem to have ended up in the bundle of papers in the NAS. I wonder why the depositions of the others in the gang weren't there?

From the write up in the Perth Courier, John Jones "pleaded guilty to theft, with the aggravation of habit and repute, but not that of housebreaking". He was "also charged as art and part in other two indictments for similar crimes, but chich of course did not appear as aggravating this case". Presumably why he got the heaviest sentence.

James Luke and James Dunbar pleaded guilty to theft by means of housebreaking. "Evidence in alleviation" was called for James Dunbar, but nothing it seems for James Luke and yet they both still got the same sentence of 7 years transportation.

Again, James McPherson "pleaded guilty of the theft, and the public prosecutor having departed from the charge of housebreaking" he got six months imprisonment.

It was definitely the same set of incidents set out in Peter and Andrew's depositions - the names of the victims and articles stolen are the same. So still a mystery I'm afraid.

Jacky

[DavidWW]

A burgess would certainly be well connected !

David