Alfred Robinson...but not

Chimp

Chimp

Moderator & Cheeky Human IMP
Staff member
Alfred Robinson died of his wounds on 28th December 1942 in Tunisia, North Africa. He was 26 years old (giving a birth of 1916) and the Husband of Myra Robinson of Clun, Shropshire.

Alfred had married Myra Whittall earlier in 1942.

In 1939 he was with his mother Olive Robinson living at 8 Cefurnion, Clun, Clun R.D., Shropshire

1921 here is where the 'but not' comes in

1921 Census Of England & Wales
Brockhouse Cottage, Acton, Bishop's Castle, Lydbury North, Shropshire

Jasper Robinson, Head, 1888, 33, Lydbury North, Shropshire
Olive Robinson, Wife, 1873, 48, Chirbury, Shropshire
Alfred Minton, Adopted son, 1916, 4, Wellington, Shropshire
George Frith, Visitor, 1900, 21, Hinckley, Leicestershire

On this census he is Alfred Minton.

I would more likely go with the birth of 1916 rather than the 1914 on the 1939 census, only for the reasons that they were more likely to know he was 4 years old in 1921 and 1916 is also the birth date shown on the CWGC.

The thing is I can find no likely birth for him.
 
Chimp said:
I would more likely go with the birth of 1916 rather than the 1914 on the 1939 census
Click to expand...
Just to muddy things further... Looking at the original, it seems more like a 19 than a 14

1759128900946.webp

So...

Looking for a 1919 birth on FreeBMD, I found this:
1759129061496.webp

Clicking on the 1759129092452.webp took me though to 1759129131451.webp

Ergo, could this be Alfred?

Just a thought...
 
Thinking Alfred might be the son of Olive I checked out the marriage of Jasper to Olive and found this
1759129376331.webp

As Alfred then married a Whittall, then it seems unlikely he was her son, not that I have found him registered as Minton:(
 
Then again....

There is a birth registration for an Alfred J W MINTON in the December quarter of 1915 (so just a year out) in Ludlow, mmn EDWARDS.

The only MINTON/EDWARDS marriage that I could find was that of William MINTON and Kate EDWARDS in Clun in 1909.

The 1911 census has the couple living at Clunton Aston on Clune, Clunbury, Shropshire, with a month old son, William Herbert.

Now, move on to 1921, and the couple are living at Haugh Soudley, Church Stretton, Acton Scott, Shropshire. The son William Herbert is with them - plus another son, Edward, who should have been on the 1911 as he is now aged 14, so born before the couple wed. :headbang: However, there is no sign of Alfred.

Maybe there is a connection somehow between William and Kate with Jasper and Olive...

(Knitting fog, springs to mind...)
 
Daft Bat said:
There is a birth registration for an Alfred J W MINTON in the December quarter of 1915 (so just a year out) in Ludlow, mmn EDWARDS.
Click to expand...
He is on the 1939 reg. (married to Alice E E) b 3/11/1915
Alfred J W married Alice E E Morris in 1939
Alfred William John is on the 1921 census with parents - Alfred Herbert Minton and wife Eliza, the age of 5 years 7 months ties in with the birth reg in 1915, there are siblings Kathleen Florance (mmn Edwards) b1913, Herbert (mmn Edwards) b1917 and John (mmn Edwards) b1921
Living 9 Waterside, Ludlow
Not that I readily see a marriage for Alfred and Eliza:headbang: He is single, and at home with his family, in 1911
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if this is the sad tale of how Alfred Minton may have come to be adopted. The account says one of the children was 8 weeks old. In 1939 Alfred's dob was given as the 6th September which would tie in nicely with the article published on the 18th November 1916.

Ludlow Advertiser 18th November 1916
NEGLECTED FAMILY. John George Minton, labourer, was charged on a warrant issued at the instance of the Clun Guardians with wilfully neglecting and refusing to maintain his wife and eight children whereby they became and are still chargeable to the common fund the Clun Union. As fully reported in the “Advertiser” the question of the family's settlement in the Union and consequent serious financial liability has been a controvertible point at the Guardians' meetings lately. Prisoner pleaded “I do not call it desertion.” Mr Percy Henry Newill, clerk to the Guardians in his sworn evidence stated he appeared on behalf of the Board. Prisoner’s wife was present in Court if the Bench desired to question her. The ages of the children were 14, 12, 9, 6, 3, 2, 1 and eight weeks. Prisoner was before the Bench in July, 1913, upon a similar charge. On that occasion there were six children. The hearing was adjourned, he promising to provide a home for the family. Owing to the nonfulfillment of that promise, he was convicted and sent to prison for 14 days with hard labour. Subsequently he took the children out of the House, and he appeared to have lived again with his family for about three years. A few months ago he deserted them again and they had become chargeable to the Kidderminster Union and from thence by a removal order to the Clun Union Workhouse. The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr E. Griffiths): In what Parish is their settlement. Lydbury North. Mr Newill explained under adjudication against the Clun Guardians in 1913 that order prevented the Board disputing the settlement. Four of the children had been sent to the Wellington Children's Home at a cost per head of 8s. 6d. weekly. The remainder were with their mother in the Workhouse with the exception of one who was in a fever hospital at Kidderminster. It was an extremely serious matter for the Clun Union. Prisoner was a strong able-bodied man who neglected to provide a home and maintain his wife and family. If he really did mean to provide for them he would not press for very much in the way of punishment, but he thought upon conviction prisoner should be punished for the offence, the second of its kind. The Clerk: Can you rely upon his promise? Well if he does not maintain his family, we shall go for him again. We mean to make his life very disagreeable and miserable for him. We cannot be saddled with the expense of keeping the family of such an able-bodied man. He had been told by prisoner that he had been offered employment by a firm of timber hauliers at £2 2s. weekly, with extra money for lodgings when away from home. In any case he ought not to have any difficulty in finding a good paying employment in these days. Prisoner also told him that he was over military age. The Chairman (to prisoner): How old are you? - 47. The Chairman: 47, you don’t look it. Prisoner told the Bench he had some furniture in the house where he had been formerly employed which he would have to store until he got another job and a house. Prisoner’s wife stated she was 36 years of age. Their last home was let on the farm with the employment. The Chairman: We must inflict some punishment. It is very serious neglect. We have no confidence in you Minton. Prisoner said he had been on a farm job but only got 18s. a week, which was insufficient to keep himself and family. The Chairman (sternly): That was no reason for your deserting them. P.C. Plant stated he received prisoner from the Stourport Police the previous day. Prisoner had the character of being a good farm worker, stockman, shepherd or wagoner. He had 4s. 4½d in his possession. Mr Newill: At our Tribunal sittings agricultural appellants always prefer their waggoner exempted to others. The Chairman (to prisoner): You have no permanent place at present? No. Mr Newill pressed for some punishment as an example and deterrent to others, He expressed thanks to the Police for their enquiries into the matter. Addressing prisoner the Chairman, after consultation, said he was liable to three months’ hard labour. If he committed the offence again, and that would be the third time, he would have to go to Quarter Sessions where he could receive 12 months and corporal punishment. However, to give him again an opportunity to reform and conduct himself in a reasonable manner and be a proper member of society and live honestly for the rest of his days with his wife and family as he ought to do, the Bench had decided to deal leniently with him again and commit him to prison for fourteen days with hard labour.
 
Oooh that sounds really promising. Especially with the reference to Wellington workhouse. Ill see if I can find his parent’s marriage to get the MMN and see if I can find his birth registration. If I can I’ll get the birth certificate this evening.
 
Chimp said:
Oooh that sounds really promising. Especially with the reference to Wellington workhouse. Ill see if I can find his parent’s marriage to get the MMN and see if I can find his birth registration. If I can I’ll get the birth certificate this evening.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought Terry, quite a few 'coincidences' :)
 
With reference to the 1913 event, the Ludlow Advertiser of 7th June 1913 gives John's name as being Arthur John George MINTON. The report of this neglect, also states that both he and his wife had previously served terms of imprisonment at Worcester of 6 and 2 months respectively. No indication of when this was, but I cannot find them in the 1911 census...
 
The newspaper report says they were chargeable to the Kidderminster Union in 1916, so could this be Alfred?
MINTON, ALFRED mmn JAKEMAN GRO Reference: 1916 S Quarter in KIDDERMINSTER Volume 06C Page 156

It doesn't make a lot of sense though as John Minton married Alice Jakeman in 1900 in Bromsgrove, and all of the births etc were also in Worcestershire apart from one in Shropshire in 1918:

MINTON, (female, no name given) mmn JAKEMAN GRO Reference: 1918 M Quarter in BRIDGNORTH Volume 06A Page 773
 
I've been going forward before I went back :rolleyes: So far, I've found quite a few mentions of the family, the whole thing being known as The Minton Case. There was another lengthy report in November of 1916

Bishop Castle Advertiser & Clun News 10th November 1916
The Clerk submitted a report in connection with the Minton family, viz., wife and seven children, who are inmates of the House, and another child suffering from scarlet fever in the Kidderminster Workhouse Infirmary, deserted by the husband, admitted under a removal order from that Union recently. He stated that under a removal order, Dec. 20, 1912, five children were admitted to the House, the parents at the time being incarcerated in Worcester Gaol on a N.S.P.C.C. charge. He was directed to file a copy of the depositions with a view to an appeal, if necessary. He also obtained the children’s birth certificates and submitted them to the ensuing meeting of the Board, Jan. 3, 1913. At that meeting it was unanimously resolved on further consideration of the matter that the Clerk take no further proceedings against the Order. A warrant was subsequently issued against the man Minton, and he was brought up at the Bishop’s Castle Police Court. The hearing was adjourned the man promising to try and get a home for his family. Upon the adjourned hearing, the man was sent to prison for 14 days. Later he took the children out of the House. That was the position until recently. He (the Clerk) had since the last meeting of the Board received a letter from the Master giving four addresses of relatives of Minton. He therefore might now be traced. As regarded the family's settlement in the Clun Union, the relieving officer (Mr Richards) had ascertained that the man up till five years of age had lived with his father at Acton and had afterwards gone with him to Kempton. The family had, however, been roving about the country for years, Mr E. C. Davies pointed out that the Clerk had in December, 1912, been instructed by the Board to proceed to Worcester Gaol and interview the prisoner and report at the next meeting. The Clerk said that was not quite correct. The minute read he was instructed to interview Minton in Worcester gaol “if necessary.” He had secured the children’s birth certificates and at the January meeting, 1913, he contended that the Board’s resolution absolved him from all further responsibility. Besides had he gone, the man might have only told him some fairy tales. Mr E. C. Davies (rising sharply): Whatever the man said could have been investigated. The Clerk: Don’t interrupt me, Mr Davies. The Chairman: It is quite right that the Clerk was instructed to proceed to Worcester if necessary, but he (the Clerk) had considered the expense unnecessary, and the Board thought so too at the January meeting, “However Mr Davies you are perfectly in order. You have a perfect right to say anything upon the subject.” Mr Davies said there had been an extension of time given the Clerk to pursue his enquiries, but the Clerk had done nothing even after the time was extended. The Clerk: The birth certificates convinced us at the time of a settlement in our Union. One point might have been overlooked, whether Minton was settled in the Union between the ages of 5 and 16. Mr Davies said there was reliable evidence that Minton was continuously employed by a firm at Halesowen for five years. “The whole thing,” he added, “is very unsatisfactory to me.” The Chairman: It is very unsatisfactory to all of us, having to support this family in our Union. Mr. T. P. Davies: The settlement law is a very curious one. There is no evidence, however, that our decision was incorrect. Mr E. C. Davies expressed the opinion that the matter should be more fully investigated and the question of the settlement in their Union more clearly established. The Clerk said he was quite certain that it was a wise thing to do what he had done. Mr E. C. Davies: I consider we could prove the family probably never had any settlement at all in our Union. Mr T. P. Davies: It is a serious financial matter. Mr A. Davies: We ought to feel obliged to Mr E. C. Davies for the interest he is taking in the matter. Mr E. C. Davies said he was only acting in the interests of the ratepayers. The Chairman: Yes. As Guardians it is our duty to bring forward any matter in the ratepayers’ interests. Eventually the Board decided to take out a warrant against Minton on the charge of deserting his wife and family.

Then this in 1917
Bishop Castle Advertiser & Clun News 19th January 1917
THE MINTON CASE. The Clerk read a letter from the man Minton to the effect that he had removed his furniture to a house at an address near Kidderminster and hoped to be able to take his wife and family out of the Guardians' care within the next fortnight. The Clerk pointed out that four of the man’s children were in a home at Wellington. The Board sanctioned notice being given for their removal home.

Bishop Castle Advertiser & Clun News 2nd February 1917
THE MINTON CASE. The Clerk reported that the Wellington Home’s authorities were prepared to waive notice regarding the withdrawal of four children of the Minton family from the institution. He also read a letter from the man Minton to the effect that he was sorry to be unable to remove his wife and family from the care of the Guardians owing to his having been called to the colours. He hoped the Guardians would be lenient towards him as he was in a fix at present. (Laughter). The Chairman: The separation allowance ought to be sufficient to keep his family out of the workhouse. (Hear, hear). Replying to questions, the Clerk stated the man was 38 years of age, whereas at the Police Court he had told the Bench he was over military age. The Clerk was directed to write to the Recruiting Officer to verify the man’s statement and report to the Board.

Will keep looking.
 
Oh hang on....

22 February 1913 - Ludlow Advertiser
THE MINTONS
The Governor of Worcester Prison wrote that John George Minton would be released on April 7, and his wife Alice Minton had been discharged on December 26.- the parents of the six children at present inmates of the House, and formerly of Acton

Im sure there will be more, but an awful lot seems to fit there, and it matches Alfred's 1916 birth registration above
 
1911 Census - RG14, Piece 17575, Schedule 116
Brittles Cottages, Shatterford Bewdley, Upper Arley, Staffordshire & Worcestershire
John MINTON 38 Farm Labourer b Bishop's Castle, Shropshire
Alice 30 wife born Oldbury, Worcs
Walter 12 son b Pedmore, Worcs
Florence 8 daur b Pedmore, Worcs
George 6 son b Wollaston, Worcs
Thomas son (full line then crossed out)

Married 12 years, 5 children born, 5 still living.

MINTON/JAKEMAN children (I may have missed some!)
1900 Walter John
1902 Florence
1904 George
1906 Thomas
1910 Ellen
1912 Alice
1913 Frederick
1915 William
1916 Alfred (see post #16)
1918 'Female' (see post #16)
 
Here is the background to the offence - it makes pretty awful reading.

County Express 9th November 1912
SHOCKING CRUELTY TO CHILDREN. At the Police Court, on Tuesday Arthur John George Minton (37), farm labourer, of Day House Bank, Romeley. and his wife, Alice Minton (30), were charged with neglecting their six children in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering on the 29th ult. P.C. Weaver said he went to the defendant's house for the purpose of serving a summons on the male defendant for drunkenness, when he saw the children huddled round the grate. The children were in a dirty and neglected condition. He cautioned the parents and called at the house on several other occasions, but there was no improvement in the condition of the children. Once the baby, aged three months, was lying on the sofa, and the other children had filled its mouth with bread and it was choking and black in the face. Witness arrested the defendants, and when charged the female said she could not get any food because her husband only gave her 2s. per week. Julia Butler, wife of the licensee of the Manchester Inn, Romsley, said the children appeared very hungry. Harriet Banner s another neighbour, stated that the children had taken food from her table. She had seen them pick up crusts which had been placed in a tub for the pigs. P.S. Hemming and Dr. J. H. Thompson also gave evidence as to the condition of the children. Dr. Rowlands said when the youngest child was admitted to the Bromsgrove Workhouse it was 6 lbs. 4ounces. During the week it remained in the institution the child gained 1lb. 6unces in weight. This showed that the child had been insufficiently fed. The Chairman (Mr J. G. Reay) said it was the worst ease they had ever had before the Bench. Defendants were lucky that they were not charged with a more serious offence. The officer's discovery was a fortunate one, for probably the child would have died. Brutes of the field would not treat their offspring any worse. The male defendant was sent to gaol for six months with hard labour, and the female defendant for two months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top