LeGrand conspiracy

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

I don't feel so bad now about you being so much smarter than myself. I have 15 years to catch up!

Debs,

Didn't we discuss this about the police gazette description of Le Grand in 1884 and you decided it was taken upon his entry to prison in 1877? This is why myself and (presumably) Maria kept referring to '30 years' difference between descriptions - 1877 to 1907. But you're correct, it would only be 1877 to 1891.
As for Le Grand and Nelson being or not being one and the same...is there really any debate on the matter? Chris? Debs? Clack?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

I couldn't resist posting this description of the "Marks" on another man who had been convicted of horsestealing. Was it considered unusual to show one's teeth when smiling a century ago?
[ATTACH]12273[/ATTACH]

Yes, considering the condition that many people's teeth were in. It was more expedient to pull one than to fill it or crown it.

Not many pearly white smiles in the photographs back then.

[Debra A]

Debs,

Didn't we discuss this about the police gazette description of Le Grand in 1884 and you decided it was taken upon his entry to prison in 1877? This is why myself and (presumably) Maria kept referring to '30 years' difference between descriptions - 1877 to 1907. But you're correct, it would only be 1877 to 1891.
As for Le Grand and Nelson being or not being one and the same...is there really any debate on the matter? Chris? Debs? Clack?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

We discussed the photograph of Nelson, and when it might have been taken?
I thought it would have been taken in 1877, on his entry to prison, yes. Interestingly, a photograph of Nelson was apparently shown at the 1891 of Le Grand, so the jury were not just working on a written description to determine if they were the same man. If Le Grand's description was taken in 1891 then his facial scars weren't prominent enough even then to have been used in the distinguishing marks column?

There are discrepancies Tom, that's what I'm saying. From a research point of view it is useful to keep these sort of discrepancies in mind. If not, one might automatically disregard a record that could relate to Le Grand c 1877-84, presuming he was locked up at that time period.

[tji]

Tom


I don't feel so bad now about you being so much smarter than myself. I have 15 years to catch up!

You are assuming it is an age thing why Chris is smarter than yourself?

Out of curiosity, as it hasn't been brought are you are all thinking the difference in the complexion is just ill health or maybe a tan for the change?

I've got to say that I had a few visions of Police being armed with 'tickling feathers' on their beat "We will get you to smile!!"


Tj

[Debra A]

Le Grand in 1911

This may not be immediately obvious as Le Grand but it matches up with Le Grand's 1908 Old Bailey conviction as George Jackson that I posted about recently. That Le Grand was using this occupation and birthplace in other records is confirmed by some information found by Rob Clack today.

Name/relationship to head/age last birthday/marriage/ occupation/industry [code]/employed or own account/ working at home/birthplace/nationality [code]




Nationality code- 982 Born at Sea British Subjects Residents
Industry Code- 454 Others connected with Literature &c - other

His Majesty's Convict Prsion
Pricetown Dartmoor
Reference RG14PN13099 RD279 SD2 ED28 SN9999

[mariab]

An important find, Debs and Rob.
Does it say which month in 1911?
Also, is “born at sea“ a Victorian code for “alien“ (as in, non British citizen)?

[Colin Roberts]

Does it say which month in 1911?

Enumeration of the Census of England & Wales, 1911, occurred on Sunday, 2 April, of that year.

..., is “born at sea“ a Victorian code for “alien“ (as in, non British citizen)?

'Born at Sea', in the context of census enumeration, translates literally: Born at sea.

In accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1911, of 4,521,685 persons enumerated within the County of London, 1,495 (i.e. 0.03306%) were recorded as having been 'Born at Sea'.

Administrative County of London
- Male: 2,126,341
- Female: 2,395,344

- Total: 4,521,685

--- {Born at Sea}
----- {Male: 655}
----- {Female: 840}

----- {Total: 1,495}

[The Grave Maurice]

Fascinating info, Colin. Thanks.

[Phil Carter]

1886

Hello all,

In case there are those who have never seen this, herewith the record of registration of Charles Le Grand's offence after trial, on 1st November 1886,
recorded in the Parish of St. Mary, Newington, County of Surrey.

The entry reads:-

Entry No. 7

Name: Charles Le Grand

Offence(s): Larceny in a dwelling house to value of Ł5

Convicted and sentenced: Six calendar months hard labour

Undersigned by ? Wyatt, Clerk of the Peace for the said County of Surrey.



best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

1891

Hello all,

Likewise the previous posting, Central Criminal Court, 16th November 1891, Old Bailey, County of London.

The Entry reads:-

Entry No. 2

Name: Charles Grande

Offence(s): Sending letter demanding money with meances

Convicted and sentenced: 20 yrs


best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

1879

Hello all,

Likwise the above, this from 1879, under the name Charles Dubois.

Borough and County of Southampton, 3rd day of April, 1879.

Entry reads:


Entry No. 7

Name: Charles Dubois otherwise called Charles Le Grand

Offence(s): Larceny/after previous conviction for similar offence
At this session on 2nd June Bill was preferred and
found against the said Charles Le Grand for felony
to which he ?severally? pleaded guilty.

(NB my underlining and questioning, am unsure of this word)

Convicted and sentenced: 2 Calendar months imprisonment
with hard labour for each offence
sentences- consecutive.

Undersigned by Clerk of Peace.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

1887

Hello all,

Likewise for 1887.

Clerkenwell, 23rd May 1887, County of Middlesex.

Entry as follows:-

Entry no. : 18

Name: Charles Le Grand

Offence(s): Larceny in dwelling house and receiving
and larceny and receiving

Convicted and sentenced: 8 months

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Many thanks for posting all of this.
I'm particularly interested in the “Dubois“ early con-name. I'll be checking it in the Paris criminal records, just to be sure. (When I get there in October.)
The May 23, 1887 larceny convinction is complete news to me.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Maria,

It may be news to many, methinks.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Nelson and Le Grand

Hello all,

Perhaps someone can explain something to me? Perhaps I am missing something here. (probably) LOL

If there is "overwhelming evidence" (quote Tom, earlier post) that Christian Nelson and Charles Le Grand were one and the same...perhaps someone could kindly explain how Christian Nelson was imprisoned for 8 years in 1877, and Charles Le Grand was imprisoned in 1879 under the name of Charles Dubois?
There is no mention in the 1879 entry for any alias of Dubois/Le Grand, i.e. no mention under Christian Nelson, whereas an alias of Le Grand is mentioned under the conviction of Dubois.

Herewith the entry for the Christian Nelson conviction:-
(I have included the whole page for detail purposes)

Held at Westminster, 9th July 1877

Entry No. 23 (the bottom entry on the my cropped copy of page)

Name: Christian Nelson

Offence(s): Larceny and receiving after previous conviction

Convicted and sentenced-Penal sevitude: 8 years
Convicted and sentenced-Term of Police supervision: 7 years

best wishes

Phil