Luke's trip around the mid-north
has brought some new information and sifting through the latest research,
offers some insights, both potential and fixed.
Knowing when farming began at
Bundaleer would be useful, as Kylie wrote that there was only the run at
Bundaleer in 1856 and the Homestead was much closer to Clare than Bundaleer is
now.
She also recalled that the
Bundaleer graveyard came up previously as a possible resting place for Hannah
Mcleod Atkins but it was not used until after Hannah would have died.
The use of the name Edwin for
one of the children of Sarah Atkins and Walter James Stacy is interesting
because it might stand as another link between our Edward Atkins and the
convict Edwin Atkins from Gloucestershire whom we still hold as possibly being
one and the same person. Although there is also the chance, with a few Edwards
in the family, that Edwin was chosen to differentiate. Although given the
traditions of the times it is still likely, in my view, that the name was
meaningful to the family in some way.
There is no doubt that finding
out more about Edward Atkins as a land-owner would be useful.
The theories regarding Elizabeth
and Booyoolee all make sense to me. In 1877 John Lewis and E. Atkins are named
as Occupier and Owner of Allotments 19,20,21,22,18 Gladstone.
Perhaps John had earned enough
to buy a house and when Elizabeth needed to leave Edward, he offered her a roof
over her head. Or perhaps George and John had both been buying land in
Gladstone and helped her out. They were both in their twenties and probably
working for 15 years. I think also what this says to me is that the Lewis
brothers were hard-working - whether that came from Peter or Elizabeth one
could not say although given Peter's drinking and violence, I am prepared to
guess it was Elizabeth.
Although we did have an earlier
reference to 1872 when Elizabeth bought 19, 20,21 and 22 allotments along
Bondowie Street. She was the first
buyer of the land. The paper work also states ‘Elizabeth Atkins wife of Edward
Atkins of Gladstone.”
This record places Elizabeth in Gladstone in 1872. She had married Edward in 1857, just 15 years earlier. Elizabeth was born November 22, 1857, the same year of the marriage; Mary December 8, 1859 and James Haynes on January 2, 1862. In 1872 Elizabeth is 15, Mary 13 and James 10 and the question has to be, why was Elizabeth living apart from Edward with children so relatively young? The town of Gladstone was first laid out in 1872 by Dr Mathew Moorhouse, a well known and respected protector of Aborigines in the early years of settlement so this puts them there from the beginning.
The death notice for Mary Atkins Ross in 1937 said she had been one of the earliest to live in the town and had lived there, in tents, before any houses were built. This suggests 1872 is a reasonable date for Elizabeth’s arrival in Gladstone although there is still the possibility that she had left Edward earlier and worked at Booyoolie.
The money to pay for the land she purchased in 1872 must either have come from her own efforts and those of her adult sons, George and John, or from her husband, Edward. Although why he would dispatch her to Gladstone, so far from Wirrabarra, to buy land, remains a question.
I also believe this earlier date puts paid to the ‘theory’ of Edward Atkins being the father of his daughter’s bastard child. If Elizabeth and her children had been living apart for at least four years before Mary fell pregnant, it is highly unlikely that it was her father who was the culprit. Then again, we are assuming the children were with Elizabeth????
As Kylie wrote: I found this very interesting, was Edward living in Gladstone at this point? More interesting to me is that Elizabeth bought 5 lots. Where did she get the money? We don’t know how much she paid for them. She had five kids, was the idea to give one each? She sold off two in 1877 the same year that Mary had Edward. Was this coincidental or not?
The Australia Birth Index, 1788-1922 has Edward Atkins born in Gladstone, November 14, 1877 with father Edward Welsh and mother Mary Atkins.
This record places Elizabeth in Gladstone in 1872. She had married Edward in 1857, just 15 years earlier. Elizabeth was born November 22, 1857, the same year of the marriage; Mary December 8, 1859 and James Haynes on January 2, 1862. In 1872 Elizabeth is 15, Mary 13 and James 10 and the question has to be, why was Elizabeth living apart from Edward with children so relatively young? The town of Gladstone was first laid out in 1872 by Dr Mathew Moorhouse, a well known and respected protector of Aborigines in the early years of settlement so this puts them there from the beginning.
The death notice for Mary Atkins Ross in 1937 said she had been one of the earliest to live in the town and had lived there, in tents, before any houses were built. This suggests 1872 is a reasonable date for Elizabeth’s arrival in Gladstone although there is still the possibility that she had left Edward earlier and worked at Booyoolie.
The money to pay for the land she purchased in 1872 must either have come from her own efforts and those of her adult sons, George and John, or from her husband, Edward. Although why he would dispatch her to Gladstone, so far from Wirrabarra, to buy land, remains a question.
I also believe this earlier date puts paid to the ‘theory’ of Edward Atkins being the father of his daughter’s bastard child. If Elizabeth and her children had been living apart for at least four years before Mary fell pregnant, it is highly unlikely that it was her father who was the culprit. Then again, we are assuming the children were with Elizabeth????
As Kylie wrote: I found this very interesting, was Edward living in Gladstone at this point? More interesting to me is that Elizabeth bought 5 lots. Where did she get the money? We don’t know how much she paid for them. She had five kids, was the idea to give one each? She sold off two in 1877 the same year that Mary had Edward. Was this coincidental or not?
The Australia Birth Index, 1788-1922 has Edward Atkins born in Gladstone, November 14, 1877 with father Edward Welsh and mother Mary Atkins.
Clare, South Australia. Page
Number:400 Volume Number:191.
And there is no doubt that this is our Edward Atkins because the death is later recorded of his infant son, Percy Mashford Atkins, the name Mashford being the clincher:
Edward William Atkins, Born 14 Nov 1877 ,Gladstone, South Australia, Australia
And there is no doubt that this is our Edward Atkins because the death is later recorded of his infant son, Percy Mashford Atkins, the name Mashford being the clincher:
Edward William Atkins, Born 14 Nov 1877 ,Gladstone, South Australia, Australia
38C31F5C1AF8460D90AFC31DEC1B309ACBC3
Died Yes, date unknown
Person ID I214944
Australia. South Australia
Last Modified 5 Dec 2009
Father
Edward Welsh
Mother
Mary Atkins
Married
Bef 1877
Family ID
F40025
Group Sheet
Family
Mary Ann Sheehan, b. 1875,
d. Yes, date unknown
Married
28 Dec 1904
Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia Find all individuals with events at this location [2]
Children
1. Living
2. Living
3. Living
4. Percy Mashford Atkins, b. 30 Jun 1913, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia Find all individuals with events at this location, d. 28 Apr 1915, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia Find all individuals with events at this location
Family ID
F66553 Group Sheet
Sources
1. [S11] [Indexes] South Australian Birth
1842-1906, Cla 191 400.
See also WELSH, Edward
2. [S27] [Indexes] South Australian Marriage
1842-1916, Ade 221/1323.
brides age 29 years - widow
grooms age 27 years
And, as strange as it may sound Elizabeth may have found it easier to
get a loan in 1872 than I would have in 1980.
However did she need a loan. The
value in 1877 was 50 pounds. She
probably paid less than this five years earlier. As we know it is hard to find wages that
are relevant to each time period but lets guess 40 pounds per annum (consistent
with wages 10 years earlier I can’t find the 1870’s).
Considering by 1872 James was already 10, Elizabeth could have been working for a few years (£20) plus George and John on full wages (£40 each), Elizabeth would certainly been working (£15) and maybe even Mary or perhaps she was supervising James and keeping house. It would not have been impossible for them to have an income of over 100 pounds. Now in addition to this they would have some rations from the station, meat in particular, but also flour, sugar and tea. If no rations were supplied they would have been paid more. Also remember that it was very likely that any loan required came from the vendor and with wages like this may have been very short lived.
Considering by 1872 James was already 10, Elizabeth could have been working for a few years (£20) plus George and John on full wages (£40 each), Elizabeth would certainly been working (£15) and maybe even Mary or perhaps she was supervising James and keeping house. It would not have been impossible for them to have an income of over 100 pounds. Now in addition to this they would have some rations from the station, meat in particular, but also flour, sugar and tea. If no rations were supplied they would have been paid more. Also remember that it was very likely that any loan required came from the vendor and with wages like this may have been very short lived.
As to wills – whether someone has a will or not is more to do with
organisation and superstition than the property they own however if they owned
property in their own name only at death then with or without a will an
application for probate would be required.
If you don’t have a will the state decides how your property is split
up. In this case it would have been
split between the children. I don’t know
if it was even between the sexes. So if
she owned the property at death there will be a record in the courts.
Elizabeth died May 11, 1908; James
Haynes Atkins had died eight months earlier at Jamestown Hospital, on September 16, 1907 and Charlie Ross had died September
10, 1907... just six days earlier than his brother-in-law. Mary Ross lost her husband, brother and mother within eight months.
One presumes Elizabeth would not
leave everything to James because he was the youngest of her two surviving sons.
She may have divided it between George and James, or, given that she was living
with Mary when she died, probably divided it between all four of her surviving
children. No doubt Annie would have gotten what James had when he died a few
months later. Unless there was something more complex, again we would need a
legal opinion, and James died before the Will was ratified- although then I
would have thought it would just be divided between the three surviving
children in which case Annie would get nothing.
Kylie wrote: Normally, whoever is alive at the time of death, not when the estate is finalised, is who gets the money. In other words – James would have inherited, it would go into his estate, then be distributed per his will or if intestate, by the law which would have been Annie.
Kylie wrote: Normally, whoever is alive at the time of death, not when the estate is finalised, is who gets the money. In other words – James would have inherited, it would go into his estate, then be distributed per his will or if intestate, by the law which would have been Annie.
Luke wrote: I am not sure
what to make of “Lewis John Allotment 22 –open T.V £12 Annual V. £ 2-10
Rates 2-6 Pd 27.2.79 Arrears £5-4 Pd
30.7.79” does this mean he owned
allotment 22 and lived next to his mother” Does he have a will if he
owned land?
Photo: Booyoolie Station.
Unless things have changed
dramatically, he would not be paying rates if he was renting but only if he
owned land. He may well have had a Will. One presumes, being unmarried, he left
what he had to his mother. The tombstone looks impressive and expensive for the
times. She must have had money or perhaps used some of his estate for it. Unless he transferred it before he died
there would be a record.
However, if she had money and
left money in her will, or her land was left to Mary Ross and Elizabeth Cox,
and they sold the land why did Elizabeth Cox or Mary Ross not pay for a tombstone for their own mother?
If she only left land there is
no assumption that her children would sell. They may not have had the money to
pay for a tombstone. Mary was after all a widow with a young family still to
raise. I don't know about Elizabeth. George also had his own family.
They may well have paid for a
tombstone and it was destroyed or stolen. The cemetery is in pretty bad shape.
If Edward Atkins owned land in Bundaleer or anywhere else how can we
find out? I have now forgotten how I managed to get the paperwork I have on the
land concerning Elizabeth Mashford land, but I must have got it from the Land
Titled Office when I was much younger. May be, and only may be, and it is only
a suggestion, If Edward Atkins owned land and there was one hell of a family
fight may be Elizabeth Mashford got the money from Edward Atkins to buy the
land in Gladstone. She may have forced him or blackmailed him for the money.
Well, conjecture has led us to truth in the past. It is a stretch to have Edward as the father of Mary's bastard son now and logic suggests that the most likely scenario was that Elizabeth wanted to leave her husband - perhaps for drinking and violence, or other women, who knows - and with her oldest sons George and John in Gladstone, that is where she went. Logically, that is where she would go.
The fact that she had money in 1872 to buy so much land makes me wonder if she did not leave earlier and worked at Booyoolie and that she and George and John pooled resources to buy the allotments. I doubt there is any way of finding out whether or not she worked at the station but if she and Edward were to spend nearly twenty years apart before he died, there's a good chance it was closer to twenty-five years, which would have given her the chance to save some money.
The fact that she had money in 1872 to buy so much land makes me wonder if she did not leave earlier and worked at Booyoolie and that she and George and John pooled resources to buy the allotments. I doubt there is any way of finding out whether or not she worked at the station but if she and Edward were to spend nearly twenty years apart before he died, there's a good chance it was closer to twenty-five years, which would have given her the chance to save some money.
And yes, great to have cause of
death for Edward.... he was living with one of his daughters and clearly
ailing. Then again, perhaps he was a drinker, which is why Elizabeth left -
Senile Decay can be euphemism although
years of heavy drinking may have left him addled. Still, to be living with his
daughter he could not have been too bad.
Edward died in 1891 which is the
date on the newspaper obituary. His
birth date then was 1807. If Elizabeth was in Gladstone by 1872 then they were
living apart for nearly twenty years before he died.
Luke has written down a few more
thoughts which will be of interest to all those accessing this blog and
researching the shared families.
Photo: Elizabeth and James Haynes Atkins, her son with Edward Atkins, circa: 1872. James looks about nine in this photograph but he was short and slight as an adult and so may be twelve. But the photograph would have been taken around the time we know Elizabeth was first living in Gladstone.
He writes:
When I was at the Discovery
Centre (Gladstone Historical Society) they had a photocopy of the diary of Mr
Hughes, the founder of Boolooliee Station. I knew he wrote one, and the State
Library has a copy. I read through it because it is not very big, but the diary
is mostly about the weather and the state of the station nothing about the
workers or certainly not in a direct way that mentions names etc. As a result,
we can eliminate that source to find out anything more concerning Elizabeth
Mashford or family.
As you noticed from the photo of
the grave of John Mashford Lewis that it does have bricks around it and you can
notice some writing on the bricks. I had a look, but the writing is backwards
however, it seems to be a name of a company, but it does say Laura. So I think
the tombstone and bricks came from Laura. I agree with you Kylie that it is a
cast and not made by a blacksmith. I also agree that at one stage Elizabeth may
have had a tombstone, but it may have been made out of wood which has long
since gone. Just because today there is no tombstone that does not mean the
family did not care or did not have money to mark a grave of a loved one.
I had a look at the directory
which the Gladstone Historical Society had. Again it was only a photocopy so I
do not know where the original is or what the name of the original directory is
called, but it had George Lewis listed living at Gladstone in 1886 Bondowie
Street and in 1898.
I have done some more research
about wills and titles to land and this is what I found out. Getting a copy of
a will is very easy. I talked to the SA Probate Office they are at 301 King
William Street. You just go in and look at their index. Every name has an index
number. You just give the index number to the staff and they then get the will
and photocopy it for you.
Finding out about land is more
complex. The Land Titles Office in Grenfell Street has copies of all the
records. However, their records only go back to 1858. This is because in 1858
the law changed about land ownership.
Records before 1858 are held in two separate places because it is the
Old Title System. First of all it helps to know if a person had Lease Hold Land
from the crown or free Hold Land (Private Ownership).
If the land is Freehold you have to go to 300 Richmond Road which is behind Adelaide Airport because that is where all the records are kept for Free Hold Land. If the land was lease hold you have to go to another place to look at the records. However, in saying this, I was also told that this is not always exactly so for a range of reasons. As a result, people should always start at the Land Title Office because they do have some records before 1858 Lease hold and Free Hold. Once you find out that what you are looking for is not at the main office in Grenfell Street then you try the other places. I was told to try to find out if Bundaleer and Wirrabara were freehold or lease hold.
If the land is Freehold you have to go to 300 Richmond Road which is behind Adelaide Airport because that is where all the records are kept for Free Hold Land. If the land was lease hold you have to go to another place to look at the records. However, in saying this, I was also told that this is not always exactly so for a range of reasons. As a result, people should always start at the Land Title Office because they do have some records before 1858 Lease hold and Free Hold. Once you find out that what you are looking for is not at the main office in Grenfell Street then you try the other places. I was told to try to find out if Bundaleer and Wirrabara were freehold or lease hold.
I telephoned Forestry SA at the
Wirrabara office because they have the responsibility for the State Forests in
those areas. The lady who I spoke to said that Bundaleer was mostly Leasehold,
but Bundaleer Springs was mostly Freehold. Wirrabara was a mixture of both.
I told her that Edward Atkins
was listed as a blacksmith while he lived at Bundaleer and did she know
anything about a blacksmith shop in the area she said no, but that does not
mean anything. She said the problems with these old stone building, which I
saw, was that they were originally bigger than what remains today. She said
that often these old stone cottages were of one or two rooms. The main room was
the Lounge Room, Kitchen and Dining Room and the other room was the parent’s main
bedroom. (The children may or may not have slept in the main room) However, at
the back of the stone cottages there would be galvanized tin rooms for the
children and any other reasons e.g. to keep supplies, horses and workshops.
She said she knew of an old
cottage in the Wirrabara Forest, which the general public does not know about,
and the chimney and parts of the house still remains and it is all made out of
galvanized tin. Then she said something which I found very interesting which I
have never thought of before. She said that many people in the 1800s preferred
to have their home made out of tin and wood because if they had to move they
would dismantled their tin and wooden homes, place it on their carts, and just
move to another area and rebuild their homes. As a result, a block of land may
no longer have any remains on it, but at one stage their use to be a home
there.
I also asked the lady at the
Wirrabara office if she knew anything about the photos I took of the old house
at White Park on White Park Road with the sign that said White Park. She said
that old building was the accommodation building for the workers who use to
live and work in the White Park Forest. She did not know of the name Atkins,
but she knew of the name Edward Puddy, but had no idea where he lived at White
Park.
I have sent an email off to the
Jamestown Historical Society and a letter to the lady who showed me the
Wirrabara burial record to see what other information they can give me.
Now I will try to answer some of
your responses. There are two sheep runs in the area back in the 1800s they
were larger than they are now. The first one was Bungaree Station which is just
outside of Clare. I have the book at home on the history of Bungaree Station it
was established in 1841. Then you have Bundaleer Station which is at Bundaleer
North. I drove past the road that leads to it. It is just before the Bundaleer
Picnic Grounds and oval and it is a lot closer to Jamestown than it is to
Clare. It was established in c1840.
The other thing I forgot to
mention, which may or may not be important.
If you have a look at the certificate of title, lot 21 and 22 fronts
Bondowie Street, but the back of the lots end at the border of a creek. I am
sure in the Gladstone area that the creek may be dry in the summer time, but it
is a source of running water and as you drive down Bondowie Street you have to
cross a bridge which goes over the creek and I noticed water. Thus the land
would have been worth more, than say, land that did not have a creek.
Maybe in the winter time they
dammed the creek and had a supply of water for the summer time. All the lots
are walking distance to the main road of Gladstone. (Gladstone is so small
everything is within walking distance of the main road except the cemetery.
Even the main entry to Booyoolee station is in walking distance of the main
street).
I know we can find out a lot of
information from records online etc, but there was nothing like going to the
areas and getting a feel for the place and especially talking to people who
live in the area for a long time and have personal knowledge about the history
of the area.
Also have a look at the
newspaper article I found on TROVE it does not directly relate to any of our
families, but it is interesting in terms of the problems people had back in the
1800s registering births, death etc.
“…There is no District Registrar
nearer than Clare, which being 79 miles from Melrose. Involves a journey of 158
miles to the 'householder' or other person who may have to register a birth or
death occurring at Mount Remarkable. Formerly it was allowed to send
information to the Registrars by letter,
but as the persons giving such information frequently neglected to call
subsequently, and sign the entries as required by law, a Gazette notice was
published in last July, requiring in future personal attendance in all cases
of' registration.
Suppose, therefore, that a shepherd, or other person; dies at Mount Remarkable, his employer must equip a special messenger for a journey of 160 miles, and often much more, to give information. If he fails in the performance of this duty, he runs a risk of a £10 penalty. But as the cost of the journey and the loss of time is often a more serious consideration than the £10 itself, the Registration Act is in danger of becoming a dead letter in the remote districts…”
Suppose, therefore, that a shepherd, or other person; dies at Mount Remarkable, his employer must equip a special messenger for a journey of 160 miles, and often much more, to give information. If he fails in the performance of this duty, he runs a risk of a £10 penalty. But as the cost of the journey and the loss of time is often a more serious consideration than the £10 itself, the Registration Act is in danger of becoming a dead letter in the remote districts…”
South Australian Register
(Adelaide SA 1839-1900) Tuesday 4 November 1856 p2.
CONTACT DETAILS: rosross@hotmail.com
CONTACT DETAILS: rosross@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment