Chek??

Post by **joette** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:38 pm

Was he on the singing sauce?
The psychology of attacking & attempting to ravish an elderly lady are quite well defined & usually the younger the attacker the older the victim.
Poor woman.

Post by **Jean Jeanie** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:52 pm

Hi All

Well, I have come to the end of the Precognition papers and "the word" does not appear again

Why the victim mentioned it in the first place is quite unclear. The six witnesses and the accused didn't mention it at all.

Joette, you were quite correct about the age difference, She was 67 and he was 35 and he was "with liquor"

I still have to receive and then transcribe the trial papers, so perhaps the "chek" will be mentioned in these.

By the way he pleaded guilty to "assault without the intent to ravish" and was sentenced to 9 months hard labour at The Brideswell Aberdeen.

Best wishes
Jean

Falkyrn · Post by **Falkyrn** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:07 pm

"assault without the intent to ravish"

That's a peculiar charge

In this case could chek simply mean a generic term for a weapon ?

Afterall the DSL does give it a number of meanings although I have to be honest and say that weapon did not appear amongst them but perhaps a phrase local to the witness was used.

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:42 pm

You mean he wasn’t after her mittens or her hand bag. Out of the blue it has become a ravish or attempted ravish case.

Perhaps the fact that it was dark, back in the days when dark meant dark, and when all women dressed in what could be described as tents explains why he went after the older woman and had nothing to do with preferences. Perhaps his realisation that she may have been his mother was what turned this away from being a hanging offence.

If an alleged attempt to ravish was being examined in court there would quite possibly have been many questions asked that were of a detailed and intimate nature and geared towards establishing guilt or otherwise. Whether they made any sense or not would not necessarily have been a prerequisite.

The most obvious thing about the document is that it is not in the words of the victim regardless of whether she has signed it or made her mark. It is a summary prepared by some old codger trying to compress maybe a page of evidence into one line and in the process maybe trying to avoid calling a spade a spade.

If you look at the definition of check you could maybe think it is some sort of contraceptive device. If he was seen to have had such a device it would have proven intent and he would surely have been in deep trouble. Such things existed centuries before the time period we’re talking about. They weren’t necessarily available to the great unwashed of Aberdeenshire, probably weren’t used by your average ravisher, but may well have been part of life for some Judges and Lawyers, hence the possibility of such a question.

That’s the Maybe Theory,
Alan

Post by **Jean Jeanie** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:04 am

Hi Alan

Currie wrote:You mean he wasn’t after her mittens or her hand bag. Out of the blue it has become a ravish or attempted ravish case

It wasn't out of the blue. Without going into great detail The victim, her husband and the accused were attending a family baptism. They left together and the accused told the victim's husband to ride on home on the pony ( as he had a sore foot) and he would escort the Mrs home.

Escort her he did not!! He attacked and attempted to have "ado" with her.

Your theory of a contraceptive device is interesting.

Best wishes
Jean

Currie · Post by **Currie** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:20 am

Thanks Jean,

The scenario’s a lot clearer to me now. Looks like he acted on impulse, or the liquor did on his behalf.

All the best,
Alan

Post by **Jean Jeanie** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:29 am

Hi Alan

It would appear that "the liquor" had a lot to do with things.

Best wishes
Jean

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:36 am

Hi Jean
My Concise Scots Dictionary says for "chek" see "chack"...
There are a number of definitions which do not seem to fit the context of your word: a groove or notch; snap shut, bite; catch e.g. fingers in a door; a bruise, nip... but one definition is that of a door-key - with a bit of a stretch of the imagination, could that be relevant? But it seems it is from Stirlingshire area ....Or a chackie (in the NE) a striped cotton bag for carrying their clothes. Could that be relevant?

See also http://www.dsl.ac.uk/ again, a number of definitions for similar words: Chek e, Cheik, n. Also: chek , s chek ; cheike, cheyke; chyke, chykk. [ME. chek e, OE. céc, céac.]
A side piece or part; esp. one or other of the sideposts of a door or gate.
Seems a more likely weapon, if indeed that is the implication, than the wee bag of clothes....

Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **Jean Jeanie** » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:55 am

Hi Lesley

Unless the trial papers mention the "chek" again, I think we may never know what this word really is.

The good thing is, that this is the only word in the 56 page document that is in doubt.

My thanks to Rae for the "shalt" explanation. That was the only other word in doubt.

Not bad for something written in 1837

Best wishes
Jean

Archiver · Post by **Archiver** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:14 am

The more I look at it it, the more I think it's 'stick' and that it's possible she was asked if he had one.

The 's' at the beginning is the same style as the 's' used in 'she' on line 6 - 'which she declares' and the 't' in is similar to that used in line 7 - 'and that she'.

I did wonder if it was something like 'shek' or 'shok'. They mean something like 'shake' so it could be that he didn't have the shakes when he carried out the assault.