Liverpool & South West Lancashire FHS - Forum

I am once again looking for one of my convict girls.

EMMA HADFIELD, Tried at The Sessions, 30 August 1847. 7 years transportation. 22 years old, single from Eccles. "Sister Alice is in Manchester".

I have tried every variation of HADFIELD/HATFIELD/ADFIELD/ATFIELD and wild cards and cannot find these girls, of course Alice might be married and impossible to find but Emma should show up somewhere in searches of the 1841 census or on baptism records.

There is one likelyish in the LAN OPC but a bit too old and with no sister Alice with the same parents.

What am I doing wrong that you can see with your eyes?

Your message has changed since I looked last night. As I've said before I wouldn't always believe the ages the girls give, even though the one born 1832 seems quite a little out for age you may as well take a note of it in case you can find anything connecting to it later.

She is in the 1841 census living at Barracks, Worsley, Eccles, Manchester with James 45, a weaver, Elizabeth 40, Mary 20, Edward 15, James 14, Emma 9 and Elizabeth 3.
HO107; Piece: 543; Book: 14; Civil Parish: Eccles; County: Lancashire; Enumeration District: 9; Folio: 13; Page: 19

I can see no mention of her in the newspapers for that day.

MaryA wrote:Your message has changed since I looked last night. As I've said before I wouldn't always believe the ages the girls give, even though the one born 1832 seems quite a little out for age you may as well take a note of it in case you can find anything connecting to it later.

She is in the 1841 census living at Barracks, Worsley, Eccles, Manchester with James 45, a weaver, Elizabeth 40, Mary 20, Edward 15, James 14, Emma 9 and Elizabeth 3.
HO107; Piece: 543; Book: 14; Civil Parish: Eccles; County: Lancashire; Enumeration District: 9; Folio: 13; Page: 19

I can see no mention of her in the newspapers for that day.

Thank you Mary, I did see this one on Monday but dismissed it as being the wrong age and no sister Alice who could have course been married or not even born yet. I'll have another look at it. Why oh why do they lie about their ages? Do they hope to get a difference made to their sentence or something?

There is a record of an Emma Hatfield being tried and imprisoned for 6 months in 1846 and gives her age as 20 if the '41 is right she should only of been about 14. Although can't find her in another Criminal Register that has her being transported. Maybe this isn't the right one!

Southbank Kat wrote:There is a record of an Emma Hatfield being tried and imprisoned for 6 months in 1846 and gives her age as 20 if the '41 is right she should only of been about 14. Although can't find her in another Criminal Register that has her being transported. Maybe this isn't the right one!

I would love to see what you have on Emma please Kat, she was transported in 1847 (age 21) and had been in trouble with the law on quite a few occasions. I can't find any of her previous records, was this on Ancestry?

I am going to ask Pat Bellas what the reason is for lying about their ages, I don't mean a year or two but a big jump like the lady I found the other day who was 7 years out.

yes the record was part of their Criminal Registers collection. Will send attachment to you in a pm, haven't posted picture on board as yet and might take me too long to figure out!!
Don't know about the ages, you have thought if they were younger they wouldn't want to add any more years in case they gave you a stiffer sentence for an adult as opposed to child! But then again my 16 year old ancestor was tried and imprisoned for 15 years in 1874!

Southbank Kat wrote:yes the record was part of their Criminal Registers collection. Will send attachment to you in a pm, haven't posted picture on board as yet and might take me too long to figure out!!
Don't know about the ages, you have thought if they were younger they wouldn't want to add any more years in case they gave you a stiffer sentence for an adult as opposed to child! But then again my 16 year old ancestor was tried and imprisoned for 15 years in 1874!

That's what I've just emailed Pat and asked her as yes I thought you'd not be adding years onto your age, very strange.

Wow your ancestor sure got a stiff penalty, I'd like to look at her records if I may, please PM if you don't want it public, I am obsessed with these girls I tell you I spend my spare time now reading criminal registers and court cases. There is a fab site for the Old Bailey which I only found yesterday and the cases have all been transcribed so they are very easy to read.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/index.jsp

Oh and thank you for the attachment when you have time

Don't mind making it public but photobox won't let me set up an account!
Although am also having difficulty figuring out how send as attachment! Might figure it out before too long if not will be an SOS to Mary!

Hi
Couldn't manage the attachment on here, will have to have a lesson from Mary at some time.
Instead I have posted to the groups Facebook page and you should be able to find it on there, if not if you can let me have your e-mail address I'll send directly to you.

I got really lucky with my "black" sheep, his prison records, including photograph and letters from home were held at the National Archives!

[/URL]

Ok see what this does, if I've followed my instructions properly.

Success, well done!

Linking threads:

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=726967.0


Blue

Great stuff Kat well done and thank you Blue

Thank you for the link Blue.

Barbara we would ask that if you post a separate message on another forum, you give the link to it here, otherwise we could be duplicating research already done.

MaryA wrote:Thank you for the link Blue.

Barbara we would ask that if you post a separate message on another forum, you give the link to it here, otherwise we could be duplicating research already done.

Upon a great deal of reflection and with the greatest respect MaryA I honestly don't think it's anybody else's business where I post and ask questions.

People have different resources, I only have FMP but I found when I had two different subscriptions at the same time, I got very different results as really it's only as good as the transcriber's data.

In reality Blue with no doubt the best of intentions with his or her linkage has stopped people answering my question who might have Genes Reunited or The Genealogist or whatever by putting in the link to here, and now they may be off put from answering my query.

At the end of day people can choose to ignore or respond to your request and when I was a moderator on a genealogy board we didn't specify where they could or could not post and ask questions.

I don't honestly understand the reasoning behind this, is the Liverpool and SW Lancs Genealogy Forum somehow linked to Rootschat?

We are not linked and in the past we have spent a lot of time duplicating research already done by others. A link to another post could prevent this happening.

Thank you Mary, I posted the question to Rootschat AFTER posting here. I will be visiting my local library today to use Ancestry to see if I can find out any more information than I already have.

I like to cover all bases hence my question in Rootschat.

There's various forums around helping with genealogy questions the same or similar threads can be found by regularly visiting a number of these forums. When doing a Google search a subject can appear a number of times in the search results on various forums. The information already provided on other sites can be useful to those helping to provide information and can avoid duplication of research. I post links for the benefit of all concerned I don't think there's anything wrong in using various forums at the same but I think it's a better approach to join forces to get the best possible results from all the research. For example it can be useful to link to an image shown on this forum that is not allowed on another site.


Blue