Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Help with criminal records
Can anyone tell me what NO BILL means under the ACQUITTED and DISCHARGED column on criminal records from 1861 please?
This link may help (if you have ancestry accesss):
http://search.ancestr...=Thomas&ln=Jones&st=g
This link may help (if you have ancestry accesss):
http://search.ancestr...=Thomas&ln=Jones&st=g
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
From the county archivist:
Those against whom a bill of indictment (that is, a formal criminal charge) had been made were first placed before a grand jury, whose function was to hear evidence for the Crown. If it was decided that there was a case to be answered by the accused, the indictment was declared to be a ‘true bill’ (billa vera); if not it was...
Those against whom a bill of indictment (that is, a formal criminal charge) had been made were first placed before a grand jury, whose function was to hear evidence for the Crown. If it was decided that there was a case to be answered by the accused, the indictment was declared to be a ‘true bill’ (billa vera); if not it was...
00:55 Mon 31st Jan 2011
From the county archivist:
Those against whom a bill of indictment (that is, a formal criminal charge) had been made were first placed before a grand jury, whose function was to hear evidence for the Crown. If it was decided that there was a case to be answered by the accused, the indictment was declared to be a ‘true bill’ (billa vera); if not it was ‘no bill’ (ignoramus)[meaning we do not know]. In the former case, the accused then went forward to a full trial. The grand jury procedure was abolished in 1933.
Those against whom a bill of indictment (that is, a formal criminal charge) had been made were first placed before a grand jury, whose function was to hear evidence for the Crown. If it was decided that there was a case to be answered by the accused, the indictment was declared to be a ‘true bill’ (billa vera); if not it was ‘no bill’ (ignoramus)[meaning we do not know]. In the former case, the accused then went forward to a full trial. The grand jury procedure was abolished in 1933.
Therefore , I guess in your ancestors case, the Grand Jury did not find the Crown prosecutor's evidence sound enough to take the matter to the Crown Court for a trial. therefore it looks like the case was dropped and the defendant aquitted, which does not mean they were found 'not guilty' as the trial did not go ahead. I think that seems to be the case anyway,
If you look at some of the sentences (especially on the Old bailey site) it is heartbreaking. Children transported for stealing an apple or a loaf of bread (one 8 year old sentenced to death for stealing a piece of ribbon). I think that to take someone's property was considered more serious than assault. You had to earn things you wanted not steal other peoples' stuff.
1 to 8 of 8
