Bastardy – Quarter Sessions

[BeeJayEss]

FMP has a transcript from record set Devon Social & Institutional Records, dataset Bastardy – Quarter Sessions – Returns of Affiliation Orders 1852 with the description:

“mother MARY ANN SUTTON putative father FRANCIS ROBERT WIDDICOMBE division of WONFORD date of summons 27/04/1852 petty sessions on 07/05/1852 result ORDER MADE”

Does anyone know what result ORDER MADE means? Is the physical record likely to give any more information than this?

Thank you.

[AdrianBruce]

I'd guess that it means an order for the financial support of the child. But it's dodgy trying to guess the abbreviations used by people.

Will there be more detail in the original? I'd have thought so because it needs to be recorded somewhere but it's not impossible that there's another book again containing the actual orders themselves....

[Thunder]

I think Adrian is right about the order. I think the original record (which should be at the Devon Record Office/Archives) in Exeter would have more information, e.g. the circumstances of the case. Have you looked at their website?.

[BeeJayEss]

Have you looked at their website?.

Not yet, but FMP gives their catalogue/reference number so it should be easy to find.

Thank you both for your help.

[jonwarrn]

FamilySearch has
Devon Quarter Sessions / Bastardy Returns
Ref QS 16/9
Year 1852

County of Devon
Division of Wonford
Annual Bastardy Return
mother of bastard Mary Ann Sutton
putative father Francis Robert Widdicombe
Dates as posted
Result of application: Case heard - Order made for 1/6 a week and 15/- costs

Here
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... 9F-5Y9T-FR

[jonwarrn]

Ref QS 16/9
Year 1852

Reference: QS/16/9/1-22
Description: Returns of affiliation orders
Date: 1852
Held by: Devon Archives and Local Studies Service (South West Heritage Trust)
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... f516307405

22 divisions on that film?

[BeeJayEss]

That is absolutely brilliant, thank you so much jonwarrn.

[Guy]

Bastardy proceedings and orders are worth following up, for instance more than one man may be liable to pay maintenance for a child
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~framland ... EG1750.htm

Not only may two men be liable to pay but a man and a woman may have joint liability
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~framland ... TG1787.htm

I assume this was where the churchwardens did not think the man was able to find the money required, it should also be noted that the child concerned in the second case had not been born when the award was made, this pre-birth action was quite common at that time.
Cheers
Guy