tickettyboo Posted 3 February , 2007 Share Posted 3 February , 2007 I have downloaded a naval service record and it has a reference to a civil arrest and trial in Nottingham in 1919. It is very puzzling, the note says it was decided not to retain him for further service, yet he served a further 5 years ( with conduct as V.G.) and served again ( though not noted on this record) in WW2. Having been to the Nottingham archives and looked at the Quarter Sessions Minute book, I find that the arrest was of a man with the same name and age but from a very different area of the country to that of the person the service record belongs to. Questions: 1 Could it have been possible that the wrong record was pulled out when the note was added? 2 There is a later note that says NL 38405/19 "Run" removed, could that be an amendment to say the trial note was in error? 3 What does the NL number signify? Would there be an matching entry on a ship's log to perhaps clarify it? If so , any information as to how I would go about that would be appreciated Hopefully, I have attached screen shots of part of the record, apologies if I messed it up :-) Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatio2 Posted 4 February , 2007 Share Posted 4 February , 2007 It is indeed strange that he was retained if he did, in fact, go to trial. However, as you say, there may have been a mix-up. The removal of RUN: when a man deserts, his service record is marked RUN and that will remain on his record until such time as the Admiralty decides otherwise. If he is not recovered, the RUN notation will remain. If he returns to the Service and has good conduct for a period, application may be made to have RUN removed. In this case this did happen and the removal was approved by the branch of Admiralty called the Naval Law (NL) Division. The number is a NL reference which is almost certainly untraceable. Nothing would appear in the Ship's Log. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tickettyboo Posted 4 February , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 February , 2007 It is indeed strange that he was retained if he did, in fact, go to trial. However, as you say, there may have been a mix-up. I believe there was a mix up, I knew the man and will eat my hat ( and the rest of the county's) if he ever took a penny that didn't belong to him. The trial record seems to uphold my view. The removal of RUN: when a man deserts, his service record is marked RUN and that will remain on his record until such time as the Admiralty decides otherwise. If he is not recovered, the RUN notation will remain. If he returns to the Service and has good conduct for a period, application may be made to have RUN removed. In this case this did happen and the removal was approved by the branch of Admiralty called the Naval Law (NL) Division. The number is a NL reference which is almost certainly untraceable. Nothing would appear in the Ship's Log. I am unsure if you mean that the NL number refers to a rule or regulation ( that has been broken or adhered to) , if that is the case then I am at a dead end I suppose. I was hoping that it would relate to a record of the event , in which case I assumed there would be a corresponding list so they could use the next sequential number Thank you for your time and the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatio2 Posted 4 February , 2007 Share Posted 4 February , 2007 The NL number is not a regulation but the reference number of the Admiralty letter authorising the removal of RUN. The letter would say little more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 4 February , 2007 Share Posted 4 February , 2007 Boo, Welcome to the forum, looks like an interesting Service Record, does it say anything in the 'Cause of Discharge' Column or noted in the division for 'Time forfieted'. From what I can see the trial, marked Run and another Blip in 1921 are diffrent events. Does it say if he was Found guilty at the Quarters Sessions for the shop breaking? Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tickettyboo Posted 4 February , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 February , 2007 Boo, Welcome to the forum, looks like an interesting Service Record, does it say anything in the 'Cause of Discharge' Column or noted in the division for 'Time forfieted'. From what I can see the trial, marked Run and another Blip in 1921 are diffrent events. Does it say if he was Found guilty at the Quarters Sessions for the shop breaking? Regards Charles Thank you for the welcome. The person who was tried ( who, from the trial records ,wasn't the holder of this service record, just had the same name) both pleaded and was returned guilty. This trial took place in Aug/Sept 1919, he served till December 1924, when it says 'Shore by purchase' I think that was because he was due to be married in early 1925 and his bride, though beautiful, was also rather insistent that he was at home :-) He has another service number ( RNR ??) for the second world war, but his next of kin has to apply for that so we are getting the form for her and will apply. Oh and his daughters ( one of whom is my Ma in law) know about the 'blip' , he was a boxer and hit someone he shouldn't have ( under provocation) outside of the ring. Apparently he was quite rightly punished, but the other fella was transferred to another ship. As an aside, do you know if there were any records kept of Naval boxing tournamnets etc? I may be able to pinpoint where he was at the time in question via those. Apparently he was a very good lightweight. It may seem silly, but reading that note on his record has caused distress, I honestly don't think he was capable of doing something like that and what I read of the trial record seems to confirm my view. Thanks for your time and input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 4 February , 2007 Share Posted 4 February , 2007 Welcome to the forum! For the trial you could try looking in a Nottingham local paper. If there are two names and numbers on the record then they are for 2 separate people, otherwise it all relates to one man. He was passed for Leading Seaman 11/4/1921, although; there may not have been any postitions for him in that rank as he had been over 6 years in rank 26/11/1924. In the 1920s the Navy was cut savagely so there were probably no openings for him and he bought himself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 4 February , 2007 Share Posted 4 February , 2007 Boo, Serious piece of paper the Service Certificate, I would think if the statement was wrong then it would have been detected and changed. Kings Regulations and Admiralty Instructions 1913 Chapter XXI about Service Certificates. 832. Authority of Certificate.-In all questions relative to a man's character or which depend upon it, the notations made upon his service certificate are to be considered as conclusive, unless the certificate should appear to have been tampered with, in which case the Captain on noticing it is immediately to report the particulars to the Admiralty, in order that reference may be made to the records in office to clear up the matter, and on the result being communicated the Captain is to note it upon the certificate, and attest it with his signature. 2. Irregularities.-The Captain is to report by letter to the Commander-in-Chief any irregularities he may observe in the certificates of men joining his ship. The attention of Captains of general depots and gunnery schools is especially drawn to this point. 3. Erasures or Alterations.-In no circumstances is any erasure to be made on the certificate, but if an error is committed, and detected at the time, it is to be at once corrected, without erasure, under the authority of the Captain, and attested by his signature. Except as provided by clause 5 of this Article, no alteration relative to the past is to be made on the certificate without the sanction of the Admiralty. 4. Custody of Certificates.-Certificates are to be kept in the boxes provided for the purpose in the office of the ship in which the men may be borne or serving, until they are finally discharged from the Service, when their several history sheets are to be detached from their service certificates and sent for custody to the gunnery or torpedo school, signal school, or general depot, as the case may be, of the port divisions to which the men belong; but whenever a man may require it, on application to the officer of his division, he is to be furnished with a copy of his certificate on the established form. 5. Annual Inspection.-The Commander-in-Chief is to take such steps as he may consider best to ensure that the certificates and the various history sheets of all men serving on board His Majesty's ships under his command are carefully inspected once in each year, in order that any irregularities may be detected and corrected. The fact that such an inspection has been held, and the date, is to be noted in the report of inspection of each ship. He is to cause all certificates and history sheets passing through his office to be examined, and in the event of their being found incomplete or incorrect, they are to be returned for correction to the ship from which they were forwarded. When this course is not practicable the attention of the Admiralty is to be called to any errors or omissions that may be noticed. 6. G.C.B. and Conduct Awards.-Awards and restorations of good conduct badges and restorations to the first class for conduct made by Commanding Officers of His Majesty's ships are to be accepted as final and are not subject to revision under clauses 2 and 5 of this Article. Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tickettyboo Posted 4 February , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 February , 2007 Boo, Serious piece of paper the Service Certificate, I would think if the statement was wrong then it would have been detected and changed. Kings Regulations and Admiralty Instructions 1913 Chapter XXI about Service Certificates. <snip very informative detail, thank you!> Thank you Charles. Yes, I would have thought it would have been deleted and /or changed too. Apart from personal doubts as I knew the man, the record seems to be contradictory, they say they will not retain him for service and then do so for 5 years. Added to that, the trial record states that the man on trial came from a completely different area of the counry to the service record holder. I am trying to find other sources to see if I can find any other information. I know its a long shot after all these years, but I would like to try my best. I am going to go to Kew as soon as I am able, to at least look through ships logs, may not find anything,but if I don't look I would feel like I hadn't done my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted 5 February , 2007 Share Posted 5 February , 2007 Boo, Good for you I hope you solve the puzzle. Is there another set of documents to a man with the same name from the area of the country the chap at the trial came from?. If he had spent any time in a civilian prison the navy would have stopped his pay that will be in the 'time forfiet' part of his certificate. What ship was he on at the time? was it in the UK or can its whereabouts be traced. Being the devils advocate, the navy didnt always do what it said in letters, they tended to be standard forms and certificates. A man could well say he was from a diffrent place so that a report didn't get into his local press! Regards Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 5 February , 2007 Share Posted 5 February , 2007 He has another service number ( RNR ??) for the second world war The computer crashed as I was picking this up. The Royal Naval Reserve was usually drawn from merchant seamen and there are records for the merchant marine at Kew. Here's some of their reseach guides to look at before you go: Domestic Records Information 90 Merchant Seamen: Sea Service Records 1913-1972 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalog...?sLeafletID=128 Domestic Records Information 110 Merchant Seamen: Records of the RGSS, A Guide to Research guides http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalog...?sLeafletID=257 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_harvey Posted 5 February , 2007 Share Posted 5 February , 2007 He may have been RFR (royal fleet reserve) which were drawn from the Royal Navy or he may have been recalled to serve with the navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nittenman Posted 5 February , 2007 Share Posted 5 February , 2007 What does it say after 'further service in RN -----certificate..' I cant make out that one word. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tickettyboo Posted 5 February , 2007 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2007 The computer crashed as I was picking this up. Oh dear, hope that wasn't anything to do with me..I never touched nuffink! :-) The Royal Naval Reserve was usually drawn from merchant seamen and there are records for the merchant marine at Kew. Here's some of their reseach guides to look at before you go: Domestic Records Information 90 Merchant Seamen: Sea Service Records 1913-1972 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalog...?sLeafletID=128 Domestic Records Information 110 Merchant Seamen: Records of the RGSS, A Guide to Research guides http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalog...?sLeafletID=257 Thanks, but I was mistaken, having read James' post ( below) I had another look at the record and see that it does actually say RFR. Sorry, I am a bit new at these things :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tickettyboo Posted 5 February , 2007 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2007 He may have been RFR (royal fleet reserve) which were drawn from the Royal Navy or he may have been recalled to serve with the navy. Yes, thank you James. I read it again and it does say RFR. Will take a while to get the next service record, but its waited this long it will wait a wee bit longer. I can be patient when its important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tickettyboo Posted 5 February , 2007 Author Share Posted 5 February , 2007 What does it say after 'further service in RN -----certificate..' I cant make out that one word. Keith It says 'Protecting Certificate sent to Governor, H.M. Prison, Nottingham 19/9/19 ' I am led to believe ( from asking a question elsewhere) that a Protecting Certificate was issued if the Navy had located an absentee , but did not require him for disciplinary proceedings or further service. Its another reason for me to doubt that the entry is on the correct record, in view of the fact he served for 5 more years. If anyone has knowledge of these certs and can explain if I have the wrong end of the stick, I would be grateful if they would say so. I really want to understand what happened, I realise that my suspicions about the entry being on the wrong record are mainly conjecture, but I do want to feel that I have at least investigated as far as I can. If I find enough doubts or any definite evidence then I can think about what , if anything, to do next but I certainly wont jump the gun on a gut feeling :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nittenman Posted 5 February , 2007 Share Posted 5 February , 2007 Have you tried contacting Nottinghamshire Police to see if they have any archived records? You might get lucky as many forces have museums these days. That said, many dont. But if they do there may be something to help you. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_harvey Posted 5 February , 2007 Share Posted 5 February , 2007 Yes, thank you James. I read it again and it does say RFR. Will take a while to get the next service record, but its waited this long it will wait a wee bit longer. I can be patient when its important. It should have a number next to the RFR bit which will give you his RFR Number. Can you paste the Service certificate on here so we can have a look at all the details, we may spot something you may have missed. Have you managed to identify all his ships? as some of us have excellent reference books so we may be able to help you out. Kind REgards James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_harvey Posted 5 February , 2007 Share Posted 5 February , 2007 Have you tried contacting Nottinghamshire Police to see if they have any archived records? You might get lucky as many forces have museums these days. That said, many dont. But if they do there may be something to help you. Keith Nottingham police do have an excellent museum, if you google nottingham police it should give you the address, and under the freedom of information act they are now very helpful. Kind Regards James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now