VIC - Marriage(s) -Look up please

[Lucy2]

Hi Everyone   

No, I haven't disappeared altogether -  have just spent 3 long, exhausting days in libraries, Archives, and searching old newspapers (to the point where I can no longer "see straight") in order to get answers to some of the earlier questions asked.

SUMMARY :   RICHINGS /  Morinini

1)       Annie MORININI :   -  completed final checking today by searching the handwritten probate registers and in-house records at Archives NZ.     There was NO probate file or will for Annie.

2)       John / "Thomas"  RICHINGS :
Extensive search of electoral / postal directories :
a.     No evidence of him 1880 - 83 at Dunedin or surrounding areas.  (His bankruptcy files, yet to be received, may contain additional info ?)   Whether as a bankrupt, he lost other liberties, such as voting rights, (which may be a reason for not appearing of e/rolls), is not known.

New info. from "Nelson Mail" newspaper (see link in following post), has him arriving at Blenheim in May 1869, prior to which he was in the nearby Nelson region.   (No evidence of him on Nelson e/rolls).

b.      He appears in Wise's Directory (postal) 1878 -79
as:     RITCHINGS (sic), John - butcher - Blenheim.
In 1887 - 88 (Wises's) there is a listing for:
          RITCHENS (sic), Thomas - butcher - Riccarton (suburban Christchurch) - this same entry also appears in the trade listing of butchers.   [Doubtful this listing is for Thomas the son - he would only have been 15 years old.
One newspaper report on John RICHINGS' accidental death 1898, lists him as "living at lower Riccarton".   Oddly, this "Thomas RITCHENS" does not feature in 1887 electoral listings (10 of) for Christchurch, nor on supplementary lists ?

3)       James RICHINGS :   No evidence of him on electoral rolls etc. in any part of the country.  First sighting is in 1922 at Christchurch.

4)       Annie MORININI :    The 1893 "First Women to Vote" Roll is often a good indicator that the women listed will be found later on electoral rolls.   Annie does NOT appear in 1893 - nor indeed is there any evidence of her ever having been registered to vote.   Even in her "widowhood", she is not listed in postal directories.
                                 -------------------------

Cheers      LU

[PS :    .... and yes Jenn, (psychic or not) we'll hold you wholly responsible (ha, ha,) for triggering what has become an amazing thread ! ]   

[Lucy2]

Hi again   

Just thought I'd pop this link in which will take you to another newspapers' version, of the trial RITCHINGS v. MONRO BROTHERS - 1870.    (This is much more "readable" and easily understood, and gives a little of J.R.'s background).

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast

The trial is reported under the banner of "Supreme Court"
and appears on page 2 of each edition, on the following days:     
"Nelson Mail"   1870
Monday, 14 March /  Tues, 15 March / Wed. 16 March :

For the record -  John RICHINGS was perhaps not a total "rotter".    In this trial, in which he was suing the Monro Brothers for accusing him of embezzlement and for wrongful arrest, Richings seemingly has a huge amount of support from the trial judge.    The action was taken to recover the sum of L 435-0-0.     The jury found in favour of Richings but alas, awarded him only 90 odd quid !     Clearly Richings himself, valued to some degree, his own reputation.

Cheers
Lu                 

[tropicalj]

[

PS :    .... and yes Jenn, (psychic or not) we'll hold you wholly responsible (ha, ha,) for triggering what has become an amazing thread ! ]

Please now don't put  in all  on  me,  JAP  has  done an extreme amount of searching along  with  others.  I  like  to  be a  bit of a  devil's advocate on  the odd occassion!  

kind regards Jenn

Is  it me or what Munro Brothers    Morinini ??

[Lucy2]

Hi Jenn   

....   that  was just a little play on JAP's comment.    Referring to posts #8 and #9  ....  where you'd found that Richings mob (I'd first asked about) in England and they turned out to be not related.    I had thought THAT was the end of my search.   But then you asked if I needed any further info  ..... and WOW ....  this "crazy" Richings / Heasman thing, took off in earnest !     

Yes, I'm so grateful for all the truly amazing help and support given by everyone on "this journey" - and especially to both you and JAP for sharing in this from day one.

Kind regards
Lu                       

[tropicalj]

Hello  there Lucy

yes I  knew  you  were  just playing hence my  new  avatar

Jenn

[annecaroline]

Hi Lucy

I looked up the orphan records and found the following information
Both Annie and Rachel were admitted 18th Oct 1956
-recommended by Rev J Dunmore Lang.
They both left on 19th April 1859 delivered over their sister Mrs Wilkinson of Redfern by the order of the Hon Principal Secretary.
Mother Jane (dead)
Father William.

I then looked up the bankrupt records of William Heasman in 1855.This is their father -no doubt about it.
I will post the notes in a later message but I am afraid you are going to have to write a book -too good a saga.

Annie

[JAP]

Hello Annie,

Welcome aboard this amazing thread!

More twists and turns, eh ...

Mother Jane dead!

Father William bankrupt in 1855!

Hmmmmm ....

I'll update my summary (reply #96).

Looking forward to hearing about William.

Best regards,

JAP
PS: And even the redoubtable Rev John Dunmore Lang gets into the act!
http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/0-dict-biogL.html

[tropicalj]

Hello  there

Annie  you  are a  champion  to have done  that  lookup  I  am  sure  Lucy  will be very apprecitative as are  the rest of  us  as  you  have given  more food for thought.

Also  I  note from  one of JAPS summary
. William Richard, bap St James CE, Melbourne Vic 1846 #14885; (also recorded in NSW, V18463367 31A/1846)
     
5. Ann Amelia, bap St James CE Melbourne, Vic 1846 #14886 (also recorded in NSW as V18463368 31A/1846)
     

Were they  twins?  or just baptised  the same  time?


AND George -  what about George
ok  a  possibility  here  perhaps  he  wasn't  4  as  the index's  say  could  that be  in  error  was  he 14 that  puts  his  birth as  1856  the  year  the  girls  were  put  into care.   DId  the  mother died  in Childbirth.   I  mean  what  are  the  odd  of  another couple  with  the same  names as  George's  parents?


regards Jenn

[JAP]

Hi Jenn,

Hear, hear for Annie's great work!

I've assumed that William Richard and Ann Amelia were bap, but not born, at the same time.  Who knows.  His age at death of 56 in 1897 would give a birth year of 1841.

George remains a puzzle.

Annie, was Jane recorded as dead when the children were admitted, or when they were released?

Jenn, good idea about George perhaps being 14.

But the puzzle of the 'Jane Elizabeth AYLMORE' who had a child (birth reg 1871) in Victoria with a Peter ANDERSON remains.  Now that Jane Elizabeth (AYLMORE) HEASMAN has been killed off, who is this other person of the same name ....

Perhaps William's bankruptcy story (another bankrupt!) will shed some light.

JAP