1871 look up please

[Kay1]

I am looking for two brothers

Amos HALL b abt 1842, Cuckfield [or possible Slaugham]
and Albert HALL b 1848, Cuckfield

Many thanks

Kay1

[kingmytten]

1851 has Amos age 9 and Albert age 3 living at the Parish House along with Edwin age 6, Martha 16, Sidney 11, William age 60 farm labourer born Brasted, Kent and Mary age 50 born Slaugham. All the children are born in Cuckfield. There is another Hall family from Brasted - Henry age 53 and family are at Hammer Hill Cottage.
Andrea

[Kay1]

Kingmyttn,

Many thanks for your reply - sorry it has taken me so long.
Yes you found the correct family but I have lost Albert on the 1871. never mind he will turn up one day

Kay1

[Trish]

...I have lost Albert on the 1871...Have you found Albert on subsequent censuses? Maybe he isn't listed under Albert on the 1871 census or he's hiding under an erroneous entry or transcription. Did he have a middle name or names?

I did a quick search and found 2 entries for a 23-year-old HALL born in Cuckfield:

1. Alfred HALL, 23 years old and born in Cuckfield. He is lodging at the residence of a 65-year-old woman, Sarah Purvey, and is working as a "Fly Driver" in Cuckfield.

2. William HALL, 23, born in Cuckfield and living in Patcham. He is a boarder at the residence of a family named ADAMS and is working as a Garden Labourer.

Nothing came up for a 22-year-old HALL born in Cuckfield.

Hope this helps.

Trish

[Chris in 1066Land]

Hi there

The 1861 census has the following entry

RG09/ 582/ Folio 33/ Page 1 - The Parish Cottage, Cuckfield
HALL William, Head, Marr, 67, Postman, born in Kent
...... Mary, Wife, Marr, 60, born Slaugham, Sussex
...... Sidney, Son, Unm, 22, Labourer, born Horsham
...... Edwin, Son, Unm, 16, Shoemaker, born Cuckfield
...... Albert, Son, Unm, 13, Scholar, born Cuckfield
POTTER Alice, Gr Dau, Unm, 2, born Horley, Surrey

Hope that is of help to you

[Kay1]

Chris and Trish,

Manythanks for your replies, Alfred did indeed turn out to be Albert as the trade is correct - a simple mis translation form the enumerator i think

Kay1

[Trish]

Chris and Trish,

Manythanks for your replies, Alfred did indeed turn out to be Albert as the trade is correct - a simple mis translation form the enumerator i think

Kay1Kay, I just re-checked the image and it is definitely written as Alfred. But, as you say, the enumerator could have erred. In case you don't have the reference for this 1871 entry, it is RG10/1061 Folio 10 Page 14.

Trish