Genealogy Chat

Hi, I know from some records I obtained that a relative of mine was awaiting trial under article or act 929 or 927 in 1932. How can I find out what article or act 929 or 927 was to the English legal system in 1932? The case was dealt with in the City of London Sessions, of which the records do survive... However, all record of this particular case is missing? I feel I must a least be able to find out what article or act 929 or 927 was though, yet I can't seem to, despite much googling etc! Any suggestions much appreciated! Al

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL HELP, BUT FOUND SOME AN INTERESTING CASE WITH MY SURNAME AT WWW(.)OLDBAILEYONLINE(.)ORG THAT MAY LEAD SOMEWHERE FOR YOU. REGARDS - TERRY

Have you tried a google search for them?

Thank you both your suggesstions. Unfortunately I have not had any luck with google yet and the old bailey website only covers up until 1834, which is 100 years earlier than I am looking at.

Please excuse me butting in on your thread but just wanted to tell Terry - that old bailey website is WONDERFUL ! I have put it on favourites and revisit when I have time - I am determined to find one of my rellies in there one day. Thanks, Dea

Greeting’s Al……. I’ve spoken with my Solicitor friend tonight.. (Who says he is not that old ...lol ) And shown him your original post……. He said the those No’s ( 929 927 ) relate to the page No’s in the books which hold the “All English Reports” ( E R ) For the year 1932. And there could well be more than one book…… In which case there would be Roman No’s following the year. ( e.g.1932. I. II. III.) So he wrote down what you should be looking for :- “ 1932.All E R 927 or 929.” He also said that the case might have been only a “Criminal one” He suggested that you might find an account of the case in the local paper of the time. Hope this makes sense…. MIKE.

Hi Mike, Thank you very much for your reply. It was very good of you to talk to a solicitor friend of yours, and indeed very good of him to offer his advice also. I do understand what you are saying I think, and knowing this much more is a step forward I hope. It is certainly great to get any help on this one! I haven't looked in local papers of the time yet either. I know such legal matters can be covered by the press, but I suppose I've been thinking this one wouldn't have been, because it can have only been a minor matter that wouldn't have interested any press (though I conceive I could be wrong about that). The reason I want to find out what this legal situation my relative got himself into was, even though I think it was probably only a minor thing, is that the relative at hand is such a mysterious character in so many ways, and I'm just convinced he's hiding so much from me that I need to know to break down so many brick walls! I'm clutching at straws, hoping that if I just keep following up on every single lead I ever get on his life, I am eventually going to hit some gold! When I tried to get the records of this case from the archives in London, the gentlemen I spoke to looked at the info I had and said 'Oh yes, we have the records of the City of London session for this period here, and, given you have exact dates, we should be able to find them for you no problem...' Then, he came back and told me they were 'missing' and he had no idea why that might be. He was very surprised, but I wasn't... I know this relative of mine! Al

Greeting's Again Al..... ' Your very Welcome '....... My Friend was also of the opinion it was a Minor Misdemeanor otherwise it would have been the Quarter Assizes..... He said his bill is in the post at £ 175. per Hour.....lol MIKE.

Hi Mike, After some Googling, I now understand what you are saying even better I think. However, I am now wondering whether the answer to my quest is in the 1932 All English Reports. I think I may have phased my original post badly and this may have lead to some confusion of the facts. I said I wanted to find out what article or act 927 or 929 was in 1932, but what I meant is that I wanted to find out what a reference to 'article or act 927 or 929' written in 1932 could have meant - The reference only mentioned 'article or act 927 or 929'... It didn't also mention 1932, though what I wrote may have suggested it did... 1932 is purely the year I believe this reference was written. Maybe it would be easier if I just quoted the exact text I have, and then explained where I got it from! 'In Civil Custody from 12-2-32 at 12 Noon to 11 A.M. 1-3-32. Bound over for two years at the City of London Sessions, such binding over to constitute a conviction at Civil Law. Forfeits 19 days pay whilst awaiting trial under Art 927. (c)(1) Royal Warrant' (It could read 'Act' rather than 'Art' or '929' rather than '927' - It is a handwritten reference). The above is a note that was made in the Army service records of my relative apparently on 12.02.32 (though I realise logic denotes that date must be not quite correct!) I will keep looking into this and let you know how I get on, but I am now unsure as to whether it is right to think the 1932 All English Reports are where I should be looking. Thanks again, Al P.S. Your friends rates are very reasonable indeed. I was recently at a work meeting with one of our lawyers, and talking of possible barrister costs if the legal matter we were discussing were to reach court, he said 'Some of these guys are quite expensive, but hopefully this won't go that far, and my rates, as you know, are only £395 per hour, which I'm sure you'll agree is very reasonable?' I really didn't know where to look as he looked at me expecting me to confirm that my company found his services at £395 so very reasonable! ;-)