Tweet
Without dismissing Topping, I'd say there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and, as you've all undoubtedly done, trying out different possibilities.
The 3 Hutchinson signatures on his Police statement look quite different to me - did he actually make them. Even if he did, he could have been using an alias as everybody seemed to do back then.
The other thing is that his name (real or just written slightly different in records at that time) could have been a variation on the theme, such as Hutchenson, Hutchison, Hutcheson etc.
In fact my own favourite for Hutch is the man, who at 30th October 1885 was aged 30 when he was recorded as admitted to Saint George's Workhouse in Southwark (in the Mint Street Register of Vagrants). He gave his calling or occupation as "Groom" and when asked where he had slept the night before answered "walking about". That seems to characterise our Mr Hutchinson to a tee. The record has him as George Hutchenson, but the paperwork seems to be correct as Hutchinson.
If that is our man, then he would be around 33 in 1888 and that would fit better as Hutch for me. Of interest too, maybe, is the man below him in the paperwork, admitted at the same time, a John Hamblin, simply because his destination on discharge is shown as Romford. Both men were put to work breaking stones.
The 3 Hutchinson signatures on his Police statement look quite different to me - did he actually make them. Even if he did, he could have been using an alias as everybody seemed to do back then.
The other thing is that his name (real or just written slightly different in records at that time) could have been a variation on the theme, such as Hutchenson, Hutchison, Hutcheson etc.
In fact my own favourite for Hutch is the man, who at 30th October 1885 was aged 30 when he was recorded as admitted to Saint George's Workhouse in Southwark (in the Mint Street Register of Vagrants). He gave his calling or occupation as "Groom" and when asked where he had slept the night before answered "walking about". That seems to characterise our Mr Hutchinson to a tee. The record has him as George Hutchenson, but the paperwork seems to be correct as Hutchinson.
If that is our man, then he would be around 33 in 1888 and that would fit better as Hutch for me. Of interest too, maybe, is the man below him in the paperwork, admitted at the same time, a John Hamblin, simply because his destination on discharge is shown as Romford. Both men were put to work breaking stones.
Comment