GENBRIT-L ArchivesArchiver > GENBRIT > 2000-09 > 0968727546
From: "J.W.Rich" <>
Subject: Re: Fornication - Kirk Sessions
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:59:06 +1200
It could be that they had a child, perhaps still-born or miscarried, at
a time showing she was pregnant when married, but she was pregnant again
by the time of their admonishment.
CONNIE WORMALD wrote:
> Can anyone translate the "apud acta" in the Kirk Sessions below:
> "Fenwick 2 January 1843
> Compeared Andrew Young and Elizabeth Gemmell confessing themselves to
> have been guilty of antenuptial fornication and professing their
> penitence, and having been rebuked and solemnly admonished by the
> Moderator were cited apud acta to appear before the Session and
> congregation on Sabbath first and be absolved from the scandal."
> I am uncertain if I have the same Andrew YOUNG and Elizabeth GEMMELL, as
> the couple I thought was mine were married July 1842 in Fenwick, Ayr.
> Their first child I can find is Margaret Gilmour YOUNG who I have an Old
> Parochial Register copy of her birth August 15, 1843. With these dates
> I cannot see what their admonishment was for!
> Can anyone tell me if I might have two different couples mixed up or any
> other wisdom SKS could impart.
> Kind Regards,
> Connie Wormald
> Ontario, Canada
J. W. RICH
144 Gillies Ave, Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand
"What's New?" at http://www.geocities.com/geodesicsnz/whatsnew.htm
To purchase an E-copy of "Timber Geodesic Domes" by John Rich go to:
Some more pics of my domes are displayed at the following URL.
|Re: Fornication - Kirk Sessions by "J.W.Rich" <>|