William Henry Stubbins/Coy, South Wales Borderers - died 4.11.1914

[ss002d6252]

13 minutes ago, BereniceUK said:

 

How much would that have cost? Kemp had only just over £21 in the bank, less the £12 that was stolen.

 

      "The prosecutor stated that the prisoner asked him if he intended to go out of barracks that night, and added afterwards, "Oh,no, you are a defaulter, aren't you?" Complainant replied: "I should like to go out, because I have some money to draw." The prisoner inquired how much, and witness replied, "Twelve pounds." The prisoner then said he wished to speak to the prosecutor privately, and subsequently inquired if he should draw the money. He (Kemp) pointed out that he could not do so. When, about seven o'clock, he went to look for his jacket he found that it had been moved from the door of the Sergeants' Mess, and that his bank book was missing. He had £21 6s. 9d. in the bank.
      Superintendent Hand applied for a remand until Thursday morning, intimating that there would be further charges against the prisoner.
      The Clerk (to the prisoner): Do you wish to say anything why you should not be remanded?
      Prisoner: Only that I am innocent."
Evening Express, Wednesday 31st May 1905

 

He left just over a week after the date that Stubbins was found guilty.

 

      "The jury found him "Guilty," and he was sentenced to six months' hard labour."
The Weekly Mail, Saturday 10th June 1905

I'm not sure - might be worth asking a question to see if anyone knows.

 

Craig

[BereniceUK]

"Discharge by purchase."

 

Just after the Great War the cost was £35.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1920/nov/17/discharge-by-purchase

 

Russell Kemp - possibly born second quarter of 1878, birth registered at Canterbury.

Edited 15 April , 2020 by BereniceUK

[Vlaamse Verhalen]

Fascinating back story.

 

Incidentally, William's prison record is available via Ancestry, which confirms he served some three and a-half months of that wrongful conviction.

[Keith_history_buff]

I am a bit lost. When do we think he was born?

[ss002d6252]

24 minutes ago, Keith_history_buff said:

I am a bit lost. When do we think he was born?

Wherever was convenient for him at that time !.

The right birth record for him seems to be post #11, Loughborough.

 

Craig

[Keith_history_buff]

Thanks for the pointer. So, birth registered 2Q 1884 under the surname of COY.

[BereniceUK]

He'd put down Charles as being his father at the turn of the century, yet his natural mother, Ellen, was, I assume, named as his next-of-kin at the time of his death. Did Charles and Emily Stubbins, who'd raised him, both die before him?

 

Is it known which surname was inscribed on the medals he was posthumously awarded?

[ss002d6252]

21 minutes ago, BereniceUK said:

He'd put down Charles as being his father at the turn of the century, yet his natural mother, Ellen, was, I assume, named as his next-of-kin at the time of his death. Did Charles and Emily Stubbins, who'd raised him, both die before him?

 

Is it known which surname was inscribed on the medals he was posthumously awarded?

The medals would be in the name on the medal roll - Stubbins

Craig

[BereniceUK]

1 hour ago, ss002d6252 said:

The medals would be in the name on the medal roll - Stubbins

Craig

 

I was going to post "He didn't really serve under an alias, but I appreciate nothing can be done about it, as, unless he was officially adopted by his aunt and uncle, his legal surname remained Coy."

 

Then I found this -

Under English law, a person may change their surname at will. The law concerns

itself only with the question whether the individual has in fact assumed and has

come to be known by a surname different from that by which they were originally

known. So long as that is the case the change of surname will be valid. The process is

not subject to any documentary formalities although there is a facility for doing so

through the UK courts by way of a Deed Poll or Statutory Declaration.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194111/informative_note.pdf

 

So having lived from at least 1891 to 1914 as Stubbins, seen active service in two wars and served a prison sentence as Stubbins, it would seem that that had become his legal name. So Stubbins isn't an alias, and should be recognised as his surname, not Coy. Am I missing something here?

Edited 16 April , 2020 by BereniceUK

[Keith_history_buff]

This is what appears in the search results from the WW1 campaign medal rolls, when using ancestry.

 

[Vlaamse Verhalen]

44 minutes ago, BereniceUK said:

He'd put down Charles as being his father at the turn of the century, yet his natural mother, Ellen, was, I assume, named as his next-of-kin at the time of his death. Did Charles and Emily Stubbins, who'd raised him, both die before him?

 

Is it known which surname was inscribed on the medals he was posthumously awarded?

 

Emily Stubbins died Q3 1901, in Grantham, aged 48. Charles remarried Helena Ford the following year & lived until 1925 (died at Hinckley).

 

I'm unable to find any record of Henry Coy & Ellen ever having divorced....which possibly explains her living under the assumed name of Alldred for several years, prior to her second marriage.

[ss002d6252]

3 minutes ago, BereniceUK said:

 

I was going to post "He didn't really serve under an alias, but I appreciate nothing can be done about it, as, unless he was officially adopted by his aunt and uncle, his legal surname remained Coy."

 

Then I found this -

Under English law, a person may change their surname at will. The law concerns

itself only with the question whether the individual has in fact assumed and has

come to be known by a surname different from that by which they were originally

known. So long as that is the case the change of surname will be valid. The process is

not subject to any documentary formalities although there is a facility for doing so

through the UK courts by way of a Deed Poll or Statutory Declaration.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194111/informative_note.pdf

 

So having lived from 1891 to 1914 as Stubbins, seen active service in two wars and served a prison sentence as Stubbins, it would seem that that had become his legal name. So Stubbins isn't an alias, and should be recognised as his surname, not Coy. Am I missing something here?

It is a funny area when it comes to other names.

There is no concept of a 'legal name' in E/W/S so a person can adopt whatever name they wish to use (the perennial problem is that, if you use a different name to the birth cert, it can cause evidential issues).

 

As far as the army were concerned you declared a name on enlistment and this was, for want of another term, your 'army name', the official name as far as they were concerned. Unless there was some sort of fraud or attempt to mislead the army they didn't care whether you were John Smith or Tommy Atkins.

If however it came to light, for whatever reason, that a person had used an assumed name and he wanted to use his true name then the army had a specific process

Kings Regs 1914

 

In most cases the recording of an alias by the CWGC is just so the records can record the full details of the man (also useful for cross-referencing records at that time) - there are probably many who used an assumed name and it has never been noted anywhere.

 

Craig