Hugh Logan Poorhouse Application

[ninatoo]

Hi all,

I am very curious to know the details of a Poorhouse Application for a Hugh Logan, born about 1870 in Glasgow, son of Hugh Logan and Mary McNichol. He died at 657 Edgefauld Road (Barnhill Poorhouse?) Glasgow in 1927 of a nasty complaint, and his death registration states that he is single.

However, his sister-in-law Margaret O'Brien Logan's Poorhouse Application mentions Hugh, living at the same address as herself in 1896 and he is stated to be married with 2 children.

As I can't find any record of this I am interested in whether his Poorhouse record will shed more light. I don't even know his occupation!

I would be very grateful if someone could please have a look for me.

Thanks,

Nina

[emanday]

Hi Nina,

One of my lot who died in a poorhouse was also shown as single on his death registration.

The informant was described as a "supervisor" and he very possibly did not know of any family. Maybe my chap had simply lost touch with his wife and family and did not give any details. He had given them his parents names though. I'd never have found him otherwise.

[ninatoo]

Hi emanday,

I never saw this reply...it must have gotten lost in my incoming emails!

Yes, I agree that the "Governors" or "Occupiers" or "Supervisors" didn't always have the information correct (sighhhhh - there have been more than a few red herrings thrown into my tree by these people!) but I was hoping his poorhouse record could shed some light on the situation.....so if anyone is going in to the Mitchell please can you have a look for me? [-o< [-o< [-o<

Nina

[joette]

Added to my list.

[ninatoo]

Thanks Joette!

[nelmit]

Hope you don't mind Joette but I had a look at this one when I was at The Mitchell yesterday.

Not a lot in it but he first applied in January 1907 when he was living with a Kelly family at 10 Miller Place as he had been injured in a fall . Before that he was at Drygate Model for 2 months and previously with a Kelly family at Moncur Street for 18 months.Before that he had been all over the country.
He was a single General Labourer and son of Hugh Logan and Mary McNicoll right enough. By this time Hugh senior was living at East Russell Street with his new wife Mary Cronin.

There was a bit of doubt about his date and place of birth and instead of a wife he had a paramour named Janet Birnie. So maybe this lady was the mother of his 2 children although no children were mentioned anywhere in the application.

He made a few more applications between then and when he died in 1927 but no added info.

Regards,
Annette

[nelmit]

Here's who I'm sure is Janet in 1891 at 1 Meuse Lane (Hugh was supposed to be living at 2 Meuse Lane in 1896) -

James Birnie 40
Janet Birnie 40
Margaret Birnie 20
Janet Birnie 18 Born Glasgow
Jeanie Birnie 16
Elizabeth Birnie 14
William Birnie 10
Mary Birnie 8

They are transcribed as Burnie in 1881.
I think this is possibly Hugh and Janet boarding at Claythorn Street in 1901 -

John Burke 39
Margaret Burke 38
Elizabeth Burke 19
Janet Logan 23
Hugh Logan 23
Mary Logan 8
Janet Logan 2

Ages are out but I wonder if a look at the original would show otherwise.

Regards,
Annette

[ninatoo]

Thanks Annette, for again looking something up for me. I know I would never be as far ahead in my family tree if not for you!

So a paramour...what a romantic word! That is what I thought might have been the case, as I couldn't find a marriage anywhere. And with the other tantalising snippets you found in the record, I have a nice Saturday afternoon's work ahead of me.

Confusion over his birth....did he say where he thought he was born, or that he just didn't know? His mother died soon after his birth as a result of post partum infection and I have always though his father must have taken elder brother John back to Ireland because they aren't on the 1871 census, but baby Hugh seemed to be a boarder with a family. I am not sure though - not confirmed....how could it be really? Maybe he did go back to Ireland with the father for a few years but they were back in time for his Dad to remarry in 1875, giving the impression Hugh was born in Ireland. But Hugh was most definitely born in Glasgow as I have the certificate.

That Birnie name crops up in my records somewhere...I will have to go look for it! I will look at that census record Annette, as I think you might be right about the ages being 'out'. I will let you know how it all goes.

Thanks again!

Nina

[ninatoo]

Hi Annette,

I am in no doubt that you found them on the 1901 census, as I followed up an illegitimate birth of the Mary Logan on the census, and sure enough, she was born Mary Watson Logan Burnie in 1893 to Hugh and Janet. What a find! =D> =D> =D> Thanks so much!! As an added confirmation I also found illegitimate Janet Burnie Logan born 1898 at the same address as the 1901 census! The original 1901 census, by the way, clearly says the ages as above, so Hugh and Janet lied about their ages for whatever reason (or the Head of Household gave inaccurate information because he didn't know, perhaps).

I wonder if I can find more children, as although there are two children here, sister in law Margaret stated there were two children in 1896...JAnet would have made it three, so there is at least one more child to find...

Thanks again!

Nina

[ninatoo]

There were four children, two boys and the girls mentioned on the census. The boys died as babies. Paramour Janet died in 1901 as a result of childbirth infection. But his girls survived at least until 1930 when Mary died and Janet was informant. So I can only imagine that Hugh had left the girls in the care of a family member while he went 'all over the country' (did he say where and doing what exactly?) and kind of forgot to mention them or maybe didn't have to if he wasn't actually supporting them? I will have to wait for the 1911 for the next chapter of this story.

Very sad....Hugh's own mother died after having him, so I can't imagine what it might have done to him, having his partner do the same after a birth.

Another eerie coincidence.....daughter Janet was born on November 7....today's date! Well it's the 7th here in Australia anyway!

Thanks again Annette for providing me with enough information to fill my Saturday with research....just the way to spend a day!

Nina