John Andrew Payne: 2nd Battalion South Lancs Regiment

[GarySk]

Hi Guys,

I'm just looking for some help with my wife's Great Grandad, John Andrew Payne 1880–1952. No 1339 2nd Battalion South Lancs Regiment.

According to his service records he re-enlisted on the 6th June 1911. I have most of the details on his service during WWI so Im looking for service pre-WWI. I have him with 4 years served in the merchant navy between 1894-1898 and on the 1901 census stationed at Orford Dept, Military Barracks, Warrington with his brother. It does say on his serve record he previously served with the South Lancs and his regimental number as: 2276/ 1276? This seems way to early balanced against his date of birth. See below:

He was put through the mill during his time at the front, from The Battle of Mons to Vimy Ridge, which greatly affected his civvy life. His 2nd family only have terrible stories about his personality, as told by his son, and they know nothing about him apart from that. I want to put together a timeline of his life so I can explain what he actually went through.

Any help with John would be gratefully received.

 

[Matlock1418]

Hi Gary,

22 minutes ago, GarySk said:

He was put through the mill during his time at the front, from The Battle of Mons to Vimy Ridge, which greatly affected his civvy life. His 2nd family only have terrible stories about his personality, as told by his son, and they know nothing about him apart from that. I want to put together a timeline of his life so I can explain what he actually went through.

Any help with John would be gratefully received.

Welcome to GWF.

Not his early service, but the aftermath.

Pension Index Cards at WFA/Fold3 for Pte. John PAYNE, 1339, S. Lancs. indicate discharged 3.8.16 [and treatment] and pension for Neurasthenia

Born: 1883.   Address: 159 Arkwright St, Liverpool.

:-) M

Edit: Discharge date matches his MIC - France 15.9.14 on = 1914 Star, BWM & VM, eligible for Silver War Badge

Edited 23 July , 2021 by Matlock1418
edit

[GarySk]

Thanks M 

I have all of that apart from the word "Neurasthenia". His Silver War Badge says "Shock Shell" and his reason for discharge in his service records say "No longer fit for War Duty Stress and strain of fighting and slight wound". Going through his records he went missing quite a bit and was even classed as a deserter but his character was still described as "Fair".

[sadbrewer]

He was in the casualty list as wounded...published on February 6th, 1915.

[GarySk]

Thank you Mr Brewer,

Very interesting. Do you think he would have rejoined or spent his time at the back? Here are some of his "absences" which show he was still active 

[Matlock1418]

43 minutes ago, GarySk said:

I have all of that apart from the word "Neurasthenia".

Did you clock that "Treatment" was mentioned on his pension card - also annotated was Rtd from treatment apparently dated 3.4.22 - Returned from, perhaps suggesting he was away for treatment.

Getting treatment was often an obligatory part of getting a pension. 

Pension would be fully paid to/for him if living at home during treatment but would not be paid fully to/for him if he was resident in an institution whilst undergoing treatment [it appears he was married - some might have been paid with respect to his wife].

:-) M

[Tawhiri]

2 hours ago, GarySk said:

It does say on his serve record he previously served with the South Lancs and his regimental number as: 2276/ 1276? This seems way to early balanced against his date of birth.

The 1901 England census shows both him and his older brother, William Payne, with the Militia South Lancashire Regiment, presumably in camp at the Orford Depot, and also with what looks like their civilian occupations shown. John's age is shown as 18, although if he was born in 1880, 20/21 would be a more appropriate age. An age of 18 would be more appropriate for the 1883 birth year stated on his pension index card. I certainly don't see how this is too early given his birth date, most of the men on the same enumeration sheet that he is listed on are aged 18 or 19. The full question 11 on the attestation form doesn't just ask if the soldier has served in the army or the navy, it also includes the militia, the militia reserve, the territorial forces, and various other reserve forces.

Image sourced from Ancestry:

Edited 23 July , 2021 by Tawhiri

[GarySk]

3 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

Did you clock that "Treatment" was mentioned on his pension card

Thats great info, thank you Matlock, much appreciated. 

[GarySk]

3 hours ago, Tawhiri said:

I certainly don't see how this is too early given his birth date, most of the men on the same enumeration sheet that he is listed on are aged 18 or 19.

I meant in terms of his regimental number and the date they were issued. From what I have read, the numbers between 1951 and 2260 joined between 1886 and 1887 which made him far too young for that number. 

Now you mention the Militia the regimental numbers are probably different. Thats a big help.

It does state throughout his service records he was 3rd Battalion, from what Ive read the 3rd stayed at home throughout WWI. Could he have been part of the 3rd Battalion Militia South Lancs in 1899-1901 and served in South Africa? There is so much info but piecing it together in the right order is challenging.

Thank you for the help Tawhiri 

[ss002d6252]

His number is 276. William was 277 and has a surviving militia record.
https://search-findmypast-co-uk.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/record?id=GBM%2FWO363-4%2F007270657%2F00226&parentid=GBM%2FWO363-4%2F7270657%2F19%2F226

William attested 19 March 1901 and then carried on in to the Special Reserve in 1908, serving until 1911.

Craig

[Tawhiri]

56 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

William attested 19 March 1901 and then carried on in to the Special Reserve in 1908, serving until 1911.

William's full service record is also available on Ancestry, and in addition to the service number of 277 given by Craig, this suggests William also had the service number of 7814 when he first attested in 1901. The service number of 277 is first mentioned when William has a medical in June 1908, which makes me wonder whether new service numbers were allocated when the Territorials were formed in 1908. I'm sure somebody who knows better than me can provide a definitive answer. Definitely serving with the 3rd Battalion of the South Lancashire Regiment though.

There is also a third service number that shows up later, 1377, in the same file. I'm not sure if this is your William Payne, or another one, he seems to have been mobilized at Warrington on 4 August 1914, and then discharged as no longer fit for active service on 18 November 1915. He then dies shortly after this, and then to top it all off his widow is deemed to be not legally married to him, and is therefore not eligible for a pension. 

Edited to add that the service number 1377 seems to be associated with an attestation form that dates from June 1911 for the Army Reserve. There are two separate surviving service records under this number on Ancestry.

Edited 23 July , 2021 by Tawhiri

[Matlock1418]

20 minutes ago, Tawhiri said:

There is also a third service number that shows up later, 1377, in the same file. I'm not sure if this is your William Payne, or another one, he seems to have been mobilized at Warrington on 4 August 1914, and then discharged as no longer fit for active service on 18 November 1915. He then dies shortly after this, and then to top it all off his widow is deemed to be not legally married to him, and is therefore not eligible for a pension. 

For William H PAYNE 1377 - At WFA/Fold 3 - there is an interesting entry on a Pension Index Card - Bigamy and Liverpool Assizes, 28th Oct 13 are mentioned [unfortunately no 'widow's' name or address].

:-) M

EDIT: The reverse of the MIC for 1377 indicates: (Mother) Mrs Alice Payne, 43 Kepler St., Everton, Liverpool

Further EDIT: I note from OP "I'm just looking for some help with my wife's Great Grandad, John Andrew Payne 1880–1952" so rather looks like a mixed file.

Edited 23 July , 2021 by Matlock1418
addition & edits

[Tawhiri]

6 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

For William H PAYNE 1377 - At WFA/Fold 3 - there is an interesting entry on a Pension Index Card - Bigamy is mentioned.

There's a letter in the larger of his two service records under service number 1377 on Ancestry that states both he and his (second) wife were charged with bigamy at the Liverpool Assizes on 28 October 1913. Both of them were married to other people at the time.

[ss002d6252]

William was born 1876.

In 1908 he declared he was single on the SR enlistment form.

There is a Liverpool wedding for a William Henry Payne in March q of 1900 to a Margaret Griffin or Sarah Williams.

There is a Liverpool wedding for a William Henry Payne in Sep q of 1909 to a Rose Hughes or Mary Shearon.

There is a Liverpool wedding for a William H Payne in March q of 1912 to a Sarah Drury.

Craig

[Tawhiri]

Sarah Drury was actually Sarah Maloney according to the letter in his service record from the Assistant Chief Constable in Liverpool. His first wife's name is a bit more confusing, because the letter states his legal wife was Annie Bowen and they were married in Liverpool in May 1890(!), which doesn't square with his age at all. I presume, however, the police had checked all the information before they went to trial in 1913, and that the letter is an accurate reflection of this information.

[ss002d6252]

2 minutes ago, Tawhiri said:

Sarah Drury was actually Sarah Maloney according to the letter in his service record from the Assistant Chief Constable in Liverpool. His first wife's name is a bit more confusing, because the letter states his legal wife was Annie Bowen and they were married in Liverpool in May 1890(!), which doesn't square with his age at all. I presume, however, the police had checked all the information before they went to trial in 1913, and that the letter is an accurate reflection of this information.

This gives us

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2197/images/engl56170_283-pet-3-125_m_00189?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&usePUBJs=true&pId=2558957

 

Craig

[ss002d6252]

1890 marriage

 

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2197/images/48045_83024005507_0318-00250?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&queryId=d8dc15776953c25a0fdbbb397fce6bae&usePUB=true&_phsrc=AaS36&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=3188782

Craig

[Tawhiri]

His 1890 marriage to Annie Bowen is also in the same collection on Ancestry, Liverpool, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1935. In this case he claims to be 20, the bride is 19, and his father is named as Thomas Payne (deceased), occupation engineer. The only difference between his 1890 and 1912 marriages, apart from his age, is that his father is no longer deceased.

[Tawhiri]

45 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

I note from OP "I'm just looking for some help with my wife's Great Grandad, John Andrew Payne 1880–1952" so rather looks like a mixed file.

I think we've gotten a little side-tracked with William. It would appear that both enlisted at around the same time in the South Lancashire Regiment in 1901 though.

[Matlock1418]

 

1 hour ago, Tawhiri said:

1 hour ago, Matlock1418 said:

I note from OP "I'm just looking for some help with my wife's Great Grandad, John Andrew Payne 1880–1952" so rather looks like a mixed file.

I think we've gotten a little side-tracked with William.

Agreed - and I was a little mixed in my mind [with William's death] when I posted the above!

John Andrew Payne is the subject of main OP interest [however interesting an aside into William might be! - though we may perhaps be asked again!!]

:-) M

[GarySk]

guys!

William is a really interesting character. I've been chasing the bigamy charges for the last few week and I also had Sarah married to a John Maloney, its great having you guys confirm a few bits  This reference on his pension records got me interested.

Quote

The Marriage recorded in soldiers documents and upon she held her claim as to his wife is that upon which the charge of bigamy made against her and the late man at Liverpool, assigns before Mr Justice Avory 28th Oct 1913. From Records letter 1/7/1916

Ive been searching the Assizes but coming up cold. 

William contracted Rheumatic Fever in Flanders around March 1915 and had debilitating pain in his joints which made him unfit. Sadly, william was discharged in Nov 1915 & died Jan 1916. Its a sad story but he is remembered at Wandsworth Cemetery amongst the War Graves.

John has also been a little cheeky. He was already married to Clara Watson and had 5 children. On his return from France he met and had a further 6 children with a Georgina Metcalf, the last of Clara's children and the first of Georgina's overlap. He lived with his wife until she died but had his 2nd family only a mile away. He married Georgina so that his eldest son Anthony could get married to my wife's grandma Bella. Its Anthony that hated his Dad, he knew he was a secret and hated that when his Dad visited, literally threw money at him. John isn't remembered with fondness in the family. I believe on his return he wasn't the same man who went to war, and looking at that time and place there should be some forgiveness.

I really appreciate all of the help guys, even if its against forum rules 

[Tawhiri]

3 hours ago, GarySk said:

I meant in terms of his regimental number and the date they were issued. From what I have read, the numbers between 1951 and 2260 joined between 1886 and 1887 which made him far too young for that number. 

Now you mention the Militia the regimental numbers are probably different. Thats a big help.

According to his original service record William's service number was 7814 when he attested in 1901, at some point he was renumbered to 277 before June 1908, which I think is where the confusion lies with both William and John's service numbers of 277 and 276 respectively. Their original service numbers on attesting in 1901 were much higher. Paul Nixon's army service numbers website also notes that the Special Reserve and Territorial Force battalions of the South Lancashire Regiment operated completely separate regimental number sequences from the regular battalions. One might speculate, given the timing, that service numbers 277 and 276 are associated with the formation of the Territorial Force battalion in 1908, and that if there was a renumbering at this time, it was done alphabetically, which is why John's number is 276, and William's is 277.

Edited 23 July , 2021 by Tawhiri

[Matlock1418]

18 minutes ago, GarySk said:

I believe on his return he wasn't the same man who went to war, and looking at that time and place there should be some forgiveness.

Speaking on behalf of myself, and I believe GWF generally - I believe we don't judge, we just try to sort out and present the facts.

Colourful, rather mixed and sad events were out there. Before, during and after the war. :-/

Glad GWF is working out for you.

:-) M

[GarySk]

14 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

I believe we don't judge, we just try to sort out and present the facts.

I completely agree, but thats easy to do when its not your direct family and you're not emotionally invested. John has already been judged so I believe this collection of facts would bring some comfort to his grandchildren.    

A big thank you to everyone who contributed, it is much appreciated.

[ss002d6252]

18 hours ago, Tawhiri said:

According to his original service record William's service number was 7814 when he attested in 1901, at some point he was renumbered to 277 before June 1908, which I think is where the confusion lies with both William and John's service numbers of 277 and 276 respectively. Their original service numbers on attesting in 1901 were much higher. Paul Nixon's army service numbers website also notes that the Special Reserve and Territorial Force battalions of the South Lancashire Regiment operated completely separate regimental number sequences from the regular battalions. One might speculate, given the timing, that service numbers 277 and 276 are associated with the formation of the Territorial Force battalion in 1908, and that if there was a renumbering at this time, it was done alphabetically, which is why John's number is 276, and William's is 277.

It was the change from the militia to the special reserve that occurred,  alongside the formation of the territorial force. 

Some battalions renumbered,  some didn't. How they renumbered was rather arbitrary.  Some used surnames,  some date of original enlistment,  some just the date they attested under the new terms.

Craig