> Where can I find more information about who David HAMILTON > was? His > age? > His parents' names? What was his occupation? Where was he > from? Was > he > married or single? Anything? You have his address in December 1900, so you could see if you could find him in the 1901 census, which was taken just a few months later. This is available at www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk at modest cost. I have never attempted to find the actual records of the proceedings of a court case for paternity, but you know that it is the Lanarkshire Sheriff Court, so you could start by asking the Glasgow City Archives where the records of the Sheriff Court are (if they have survived). I would be most surprised if the court records added anything much more in the way of information about David Hamilton, other than perhaps an occupation. You could also ask the Mitchell Library if there is anything about Isabella Barriskill in the Poor Law records. The normal reason for pursuing an errant father was to make him pay for the child's upkeep, so it does seem strange that the court case should have been held after the baby died. Could there perhaps have been another, earlier baby that lived, and the case was brought for the maintenance of that child, generating an RCE entry for the dead baby as a sort of sideline? Anne

Even though the baby died before the court case was decided, the mother would still have been entitled to some money from the father for support during her pregnancy and for the few months the child lived. Also, if she received Poor Relief, I imagine they would have been entitled to reimbursement from the father. As many poor women brought paternity cases before the various Sheriff Courts, I would expect that the costs were not high. The mother would have needed to supply affidavits or witnesses, but would not necessarily have needed legal representation which is today the largest part of the costs of bringing suit. Jo-Ann On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Anne Burgess <[email protected]>wrote: > > The normal reason for pursuing an errant father was to make him > pay for the child's upkeep, so it does seem strange that the > court case should have been held after the baby died. Could > there perhaps have been another, earlier baby that lived, and > the case was brought for the maintenance of that child, > generating an RCE entry for the dead baby as a sort of sideline? > > Anne > > >