Convict brothers transported VDL -more information needed on one

[Heather]

Bob, haven't done inserting an image before so here goes.......





I think it worked, the first image is of the titles of the columns and the second is of the two Thompsons, Alice and William, I have filtered the image as the writing is quite feint, I hope that you can read it ok.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I think it worked, the first image is of the titles of the columns and the second is of the two Thompsons, Alice and William, I have filtered the image as the writing is quite feint, I hope that you can read it ok.

Thanks Heather and well done. The images were feint but could make them out and quite a revelation. I had not found them together in my searches but now I have found them (with your help) I can see why. The original images were barely discernible to make out Alice, never mind William which is why I relied on just her transcription. (I may need to change my viewer).

I know from Alice Thompson's Transcription that the Register records her Trial at the Old Bailey 8th MAY 1843 for 'stealing from the person' (her modus operandi) and Alice was given a 1 year sentence. The Trial makes no mention of William although recorded at the same time as Alice in the Register, for quite difference offences, and each receiving a year's sentence.

I believe that William Thompson was her likely 'cohabitee' and with Alice 19 & William 20 they certainly started young, became partners in crime and if it is to be believed that Alice had a baby; as parents also"! This would explain why Alice took his name and was charged as Thompson. By the same token strengthens the fact she was probably born McLean in Edinburgh; just a shame I have yet to establish this.

So another step up the ladder and will see where that leads.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I think it worked, the first image is of the titles of the columns and the second is of the two Thompsons, Alice and William, I have filtered the image as the writing is quite feint, I hope that you can read it ok.

Having explored the Ancestry Image Viewer a little more I discover in fact it allows one to toggle between original image and a line by line transcription (minus details of the crime which only the image shows). I was on Williams page so he shows highlighted, but above him I find Alice as you indicated. Here is the result



So it confirms both Alice & William were tried on the same date (8th May 1843) but as already mentioned (because I have her Trial notes) at different Trials. But the most interesting fact discovered was that William was in fact 30 not 20 (and I can make that out in your original image). In a way their paring is more understandable with William so much older but will not elaborate further. If there was a child (which I have yet to find) then I feel confident it will be a Thompson.

I found it tricky researching forward beyond say 1844 (when their respective sentences were complete) as the name William Thompson came up many times, and I think this just the popularity of the name rather than the same man. However, a William Thompson was sentenced to transportation just two date later (10th May 1843) aged 31. (Could he have been the same man tried again for a different crime I wonder?). I chose not to speculate further and concentrated on finding Alice, but her trail as Alice Thompson dried up anyway.

Alice next appears as Alice Mclean in 1846 tried again for 'larceny of the person' for which she received an acquittal. Then finally in 1847 she received her now infamous sentence of transportation and thereafter and for many years to come shows as Alice Mclean.

 

[Heather]

However, a William Thompson was sentenced to transportation just two date later (10th May 1843) aged 31. (Could he have been the same man tried again for a different crime I wonder?).

I don't think so Bob as he is further down the same page on which Alice and William appear ..........

 

[Bob Spiers]

Time, I think, to close the file on Alice at least prior to her transportation. I will return to have a last minute search again for Daniel (who after all is my bloodline ancestor) to see if I can find trace of him after his Cockatoo island incarceration, particularly a death date. The same for Alice, although with her many aliases don't hold out much hope. Still have found out an awful lot about both brothers, thanks to the tremendous help given by Oz (and other) Forum members for which I am most appreciative.

I now have almost enough input to write my story about my two convict ancestors and their respective journeys, but a little more to allow closure on both Daniel & Alice would be nice.

 

[Bob Spiers]

How unfair is that? Just returned to research again on Daniel Westbury and surprisingly came up with several hits from Police Gazettes for Tasmania from 1860 onwards and thought I was on to a winner. But no. The search algorithm found a Daniel alright but when I examined the page image I discovered the culprit was a Daniel Callaghan tried each time in the district of Westbury!! I learn from Google that it is (now at least) a town 30 km west of Launceston).

I suppose it's too much to think they named the district/town after my Westburys' ...no I thought not

 

[Britjan]

How unfair is that? Daniel Callaghan tried each time in the district of Westbury!! I learn from Google that it is (now at least) a town 30 km west of Launceston). I suppose it's too much to think they named the district/town after my Westburys' ...no I thought not

I feel your pain , Warwick is a major surname on my family tree with a town, a county and a noble family to get in the way of my research. It's actually due to the Canadian branch ( 1820- 1835) that I was able to meet my fourth cousin down that line.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I feel your pain , Warwick is a major surname on my family tree with a town, a county and a noble family to get in the way of my research.

Thank you Britjan, and I must say its a good job Warwick is not one of my surnames. I am Warwickshire born (OK Birmingham if you will, which was always Warwickshire until incorporated into a Metropolitan 'West Midlands'), and most of my paternal line hail from that county; more than a few from Warwick (town) itself. I suppose my Westbury lament is trivial by comparison.

 

[Bob Spiers]

In working towards closure I realise -relating back to George Frederick Westbury's wife - I have not tied up Ann Green's (VDL) convict record, particularly one that shows where and when she was sentenced to transportation; and when she was pardoned. I remind she was born Mary Ann Green but styled herself Ann (or Annie) in or about 1828 in England (UK?). George & Ann married at St James', Melbourne on 5th October 1850; George having been pardoned 1847.

So the question I must ask is, was the information passed to me by a researcher who gave information since verified for other family members, that she had been born Mary Ann Green (known as Ann) and had been a transported convict, true? This must now receive my attention.

I can understand why other Researchers shy away from pinpointing her UK base as looking for a Mary Ann Green, never mind as Ann Green is only slightly improved from one bearing the surname 'Smith'. I think I need to start with conviction record(s) and find one that sentenced her to transportation, the route I took for Alice!

 

[jorghes]

The question I suppose will be if she was a convict, which state was she transported to? She could very well have been transported to Melbourne, or Sydney as much as Tasmania. (and unlike the Westburys, there are a lot of Greens on the LINC Tasmania website).

A brief search on Ancestry of the Australian Transportation Registers (1791-1868) gives three Mary Ann Greens, one was transported in 1828 which puts her aside. The other two were convicted in 1834 and 1845. Of the Ann Greens, there are 10 transported between 1830 and 1850 - ignoring those transported before 1830. And I didn't count the "Mary Greens".

Out of those your best bets will most likely be:
- Mary Ann Green, convicted 10 Jul 1845, transported 22 Jan 1846 on the Emma Eugenia bound for Tasmania, from York. (having a look at the register, she got 15 years, so perhaps not the one you're looking for!)
- Ann Green, convicted 17 Jul 1840, transported 5 Oct 1840 on the Navarino to Tasmania from Warwick. (7 years)
- Ann Green, convicted 16 Sep 1843, transported 25 Apr 1844 on the Angelina to VDL from York. (10 years)
- Ann Green, convicted 5 Jan 1846, transported 8 May 1846 on the Sea Queen to VDL from Staffordshire (10 years)
- Ann Green, convicted 9 Apr 1849, transported 13 Dec 1849 on the St Vincent to VDL from Lancaster (7 years)

The other choice is, of course, that she was a free settler, but it will be a lot harder to find records if she was - I have a pair of free settlers I have yet to be able to tie to an actual shipping date. (I am, of course, a unique piece of Australiana in that I have no convict ancestors.)

 

[Bob Spiers]

and unlike the Westburys, there are a lot of Greens on the LINC Tasmania website).

Thanks Jorghes, and I can but agree there are a surfeit of Greens' in almost any research medium I have checked out, and with your own contribution pointing the same way, and based on some background information I have not previously mentioned in any great detail, I think I may have to put this on the back burner for now.

It would have been nice to find her origins given that Ann with George Frederick Sr were responsible for augmenting an already sizeable chunk of my Westbury bloodline; unlike Alice who apart from marrying brother Daniel, did not. I may have to be content (for now at least) that I have a deal of information about them since they married in Melbourne in 1850. I believe the marriage was between 'free' persons; George certainly having served his time, and Ann either the same or born to a free settler.

My original contributor of a few years ago (a lady from Canada researching her late husbands Westbury line) whilst supporting the 1828 birth year for Mary Ann/Ann ( as do other Ancestry researchers incidentally ) added a rider that she may have been quite a bit older, perhaps born 1813! (no reason given at the time). I now see other researchers claim this birth year and all except one without a location. The one who does shows she was born Denbighshire. Until I can clear up a birth year it is a near impossible task to do other than mark time. As always I very much appreciate the help you have given and will be in touch if I get a break through.

 

[VTinOZ]

...It would have been nice to find her origins given that Ann with George Frederick Sr were responsible for augmenting an already sizeable chunk of my Westbury bloodline; unlike Alice who apart from marrying brother Daniel, did not. I may have to be content (for now at least) that I have a deal of information about them since they married in Melbourne in 1850. I believe the marriage was between 'free' persons; George certainly having served his time, and Ann either the same or born to a free settler. ....

Hi Bob, just a few thoughts
have you sighted the 1850/5626 marriage certificate of George WESTBURY & Ann GREEN ?

I noticed a private tree that has a photo titled Death Certificate of George WESTBURY b.1821 - d.1895. Stupidly didn't write down the member name & now can't find again, it was just initials started with F... have you seen that tree, perhaps they would share & just maybe might have other relevant certificates?

Noticed on your Ancestry tree that you have a Mary Ann GREEN buried at Marong Cemetery but that certainly isn't your Ann WESTBURY nee GREEN.

 

[peter]

Please don't post images on the forum if there is any possibility that you are breaching the rights of others - it's against the Rules.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Hi Bob, just a few thoughts
have you sighted the 1850/5626 marriage certificate of George WESTBURY & Ann GREEN ?

I noticed a private tree that has a photo titled Death Certificate of George WESTBURY b.1821 - d.1895. Stupidly didn't write down the member name & now can't find again, it was just initials started with F... have you seen that tree, perhaps they would share & just maybe might have other relevant certificates?

Noticed on your Ancestry tree that you have a Mary Ann GREEN buried at Marong Cemetery but that certainly isn't your Ann WESTBURY nee GREEN.

Answering your second point,yes I know who you mean and have communicated with him before and had a reply. But has since gone private, and await an answer to a previous question. However I have a copy of the register entry for George's death. Will elaborate when at my desk (answering on my tablet) as found out some interesting stuff, which will answer your third point.

As to first point did not opt to purchase marriage cert, just the line entry you mention. More tomorrow.

 

[jorghes]

Perhaps to solve the "mystery" of Ann Green, you might need to purchase that marriage certificate. I have a few early Victorian marriage certificates and they did require a place of birth for both parties, as well as both their parents names (and occupation of their father). That might help you break the mystery of her place of birth and then help crack the question about whether or not she was a convict - as it also asks for occupation of both parties. (And since it's a marriage cert it should have less possible errors than a death or birth certificate... should, it's not fool proof, of course.)

As I have previously said, as an Aussie with no convict ancestors, I can't tell you whether or not past convict ties pop up in their marriage certificates (i.e. where they have to mention their occupations), but it's worth a try.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I noticed a private tree that has a photo titled Death Certificate of George WESTBURY b.1821 - d.1895. Stupidly didn't write down the member name & now can't find again, it was just initials started with F... have you seen that tree, perhaps they would share & just maybe might have other relevant certificates?

VT Please read this as a continuation from the response sent from my Tablet.

As mentioned I have a copy of the 'Schedule B' deaths for district of Cobden 1895 in which George Frederick Westbury's death is set out. I had previously only quoted the LH side of the Schedule citing cause of death, occupation, age & with an 'unknown' against both parents (which was not a problem for me of course). The RH side gives the Informant, name of Registrar, Burial details, name of the Minister, where born, if married name of spouse & names and ages of any children. (Items in italics proved most useful as I now explain)

The Informant was Mary Ann Westbury but the telling thing was the relationship; 'Daughter in Law'..so my earlier assumption his wife (using her supposed full name) had been the Informant, was quite wrong. It took a little more marriage research to attach a Mary Ann Bonshor to the son John Richard Westbury to place her; they married in 1880. I tried to figure why it had not been his wife (then presuming she out lived George by 3 years) but decided it would have been easier for a close relative to actually stand in for her. However what really threw me was the answer given to the Registrar for name of spouse, 'Unknown' ...what nonsense was that?

At this point time out to ponder on why this would be. This Mary Ann came into the family 1880 and 15 years later she could not give the name of her husband's mother! The prime reason for this must have meant she had never met her. At the back of my mind was the ongoing research niggle to decide if Ann ( I shall revert to calling her Ann to avoid confusion) had died circa 1898 or 1872. Other researchers are split evenly on this, as are those who show an alternate birth year of 1813 (as opposed to 1828).

I reasoned that as Ann's children were born between 1852 - 1871 that 1828 birth (or close) was the more likely. However I was leaning towards the earlier death not least for the reason just given but for the fact her last child (Mary Ellen) died in 1873 , less than 2 years old, and perhaps Ann died as the result of a complicated birth..so 1872 my be her real death year?

The last column to name (George's) offspring and show ages was also telling and again revealed her true family knowledge was a little shaky. She was of course able to name the children still living: John (36) -her husband of course -Robert (28) & Clara (26) all of which tally with me. For the others she grouped Mary, Susan, George & Annie as dead (by 1895). Mary had to be Mary Ellen as just mentioned and agreed; Susan (Alice Susanna) I have contradictory evidence; George who was of course George Jr the lay preacher and was very much alive and living in Western Australia and finally Annie, (Ann Charlotte) again contradictory evidence. I will accept she would not have known about George, and will just check further for Susan & Annie. I was pleased she knew George had been born in Birmingham England had been in Victoria Australia for 49 years all of which tallies.

My prime objective now is to home in on when Ann died and, of lower order, check on children who may or may not have died earlier than I show. I must also seriously consider obtaining George & Ann's marriage Certificate as Jorghes suggested, and which the above now makes higher priority.

PS ignore my Ancestry Tree for Mary Ann(aka Ann) Green at the moment which is in a state of flux - but I have made comments to explain why.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Perhaps to solve the "mystery" of Ann Green, you might need to purchase that marriage certificate

Yes if you read my response to VT you will see (last paragraph) I now think that must be a serious consideration and of course to see if I can prove or disprove her convict background.

 

[jorghes]

Yes if you read my response to VT you will see (last paragraph) I now think that must be a serious consideration and of course to see if I can prove or disprove her convict background.

You'll probably get better information from her marriage cert as opposed to the death cert - as you have discovered with George's death cert, as it depends on the knowledge of the informant, and simply because she's alive for the marriage certificate at least and can give her own responses - whether or not she's lying is of course yet another matter!

 

[Bob Spiers]

You'll probably get better information from her marriage cert as opposed to the death cert - as you have discovered with George's death cert, as it depends on the knowledge of the informant, and simply because she's alive for the marriage certificate at least and can give her own responses - whether or not she's lying is of course yet another matter!

I decided to pay for the register certificate ( which at AUD$24.60 is pretty steep, never mind requesting a copy of the certificate). My gut feeling -rightly or wrongly - was the certificate proper would be unlikely to yield more and this time would not rely on the knowledge of an Informant.

It was poor value for money and the only thing learned was that George was able to sign his name, whilst Ann added her mark. Likewise the witnesses Charles & Hannorah West (don't know who they are), Charles was able to sign, Hannorah added her mark and both were from Melbourne.

Not so much as a hint of anything else except the date they married 5th October 1850 after the reading of banns. Oh and yes, they were respectively Bachelor & Spinster! But at least it is out of my system so now I must explore what year Ann died.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Wow, a lot of water has flowed under the proverbial bridge since I last posted. Thanks to some private (Forum) discussion and research help from VTinOZ (and indeed from Jorghes prior to that) and finally making contact with the owner of a private Ancestry Tree who has the death certificate for Ann Green, I have made progress in leaps and bounds. I still await a copy of the death cert, but that aside I believe I have established that Ann was NOT a convict but a 'free settler' who arrived Port Philip in 1849. She was I believe from Somerton in Somerset and born c1830. I think her death cert will likely verify 1898 in Melbourne but will have to wait and see if that is confirmed by the death certificate.

Incidentally the private tree owner is the Great x 2 grandson of Ann and lives in Australia. So as VT reminds a lost cousin in the making, even if by a marriage connection.