My 3x G Grandmother 'the Bigamist' question

[Pilgarlic]

Hello

I have in the last hour found out that my 3x G Grandmother committed the crime of Bigamy in 1849 Birmingham and was sentenced in 1850.  I found this from the Warwickshire County Record Office, Calendars of Prisoners Database website -

http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/3C3BECFC9AF8FC7B80256E7E0056B9FE

Her name was Eliza Bolton. I have Eliza born circa 1826, Birmingham, in the House of Correction Kennilworth, Warwickshire in 1851 and also living with her daughter Mary Ann Vince (nee Bolton) b1845 Birmingham, on the 1881 and 1891 census living in London. I can't find her in 1861 and 1871. William Bolton (Gasfitter) is given as Mary Ann Bolton's father on her marriage certificate.

Here is my question -

Eliza was tried and sentenced and in the House of Correction named as Eliza Bolton. Would this suggest that she married William Bolton while already married to someone else or married someone while already being married to William Bolton ?

Pilgarlic

 

[MarieC]

Pilgarlic,

Have you searched for a marriage of William Bolton and Eliza (without entering a surname)?  It sounds from the dates you have given as though she may have married William Bolton first (may not, of course!)  You could also search for the marriage of an Eliza Bolton in 1849 and see what turned up!

MarieC

[C_Bishop]

Hi 
Could this be a possible marriage?

William Bolton, 1841, Birmingham, Warwickshire
Same page is a Eliza Parkes
Vol 16 Pg 457 Oct Qtr

Also in 1861
RG9 Piece: 2123 Fol: 47 Pg: 36
Edgbaston, St James, Birmingham.
Head, Rebecca Whitehouse, 60yo, b Birmingham, Occ (looks like mortgages)
Sister, Jane Whitehouse, 58, b Birmingham, same occupation as above.
Eliza Bolton, 34, b Birmingham, Unmarried. Occ Servant

Concerning the marriage i would think she maybe was already married to William Bolton due to the daughter stating him as her father and having his surname. Being born 1845 and the crime committed afterwards.  Possibly the law would not take the 2nd marriage as 'true' so she probably didn't keep the 2nd grooms surname? Hope that makes sence (not very eloquently written!)

[stanmapstone]

If the second marriage was bigamous then as far as the law was concened the marriage was regarded as being void from the beginning and so had never been solemnised legally, so she could not keep the second grooms name.

Stan

[Pilgarlic]

Hello all

Thanks for your replies.

Yes, seeing as she is named Eliza Bolton and her daughter was born about 1845 it does make sense that William Bolton was her first marriage.  As far as the law is concerned she would not be able to use the 2nd marriage name. Sometimes i get a mental block about these things 

A William Bolton married in Solihull in the 4th Q 1841 to either a Eliza Bushell and Eliza Giles according to Ancestry. I know this as i have matched up the other two marriages on the same page. This reg district borders the Birmingham district and a Eliza Bushell and Eliza Giles were living in Birmingham in the 1841 census. Also Stephen Bloomer who is on the page is living in Birmingham. I will order that marriage cert of William Bolton.

I will also order the Mary Ann Bolton birth certs in 1845 Birmigham and 1842 Warwick. I see from the IGI that a Mary Ann Bolton was baptised in 1845 Birmingham, to parents Thomas and Sarah so am not certain the certificate of 1845 will be my Mary.

I have come accross that Eliza Parkes before. The problem with her is that according to the IGI and census data she was born in 1811, Kings Norton.

Thanks for the 1861 census Bishop. That could be my Eliza (unmarried i see). Where is she in 1871 ? Where is Mary Ann Bolton in 1861 i cannot find her. In 1851 she is living with grandparents John and Susannah while father William (Lampmaker) is a lodger living elsewhere in Birmingham.

A William JOHN Bolton died in the 4th Q of 1853 in Birmingham. That could well be my William.

Sorry if ive gone on a bit. I like to cover all bases.

Pilgarlic


 

[Pilgarlic]

Marie C

I have just done an 1849 marriage search for Eliza Bolton in Warwickshire as that is the year the crime was committed.

Eliza Bolton married Josiah Mercer - 16th Apr 1849 in Aston Juxta Birmingham, Warwick. 

Would she of used her first marriage surname to get married a 2nd time while knowing she was breaking the law ?

Pilgarlic

[stanmapstone]

She did use her first marriage surname 

The Liverpool Mercury Tuesday 9th April 1850.

Curious Case of Bigamy.
At the Warwick assizes before Lord Chief Justice Campbell, Eliza Bolton, who had been admitted to bail, surrendered to take her trial on a charge of bigamy at Birmingham. The second husband of the prisoner stated the extraordinary fact that he had asked the first husband's consent to marry his wife, and at the same time asked him if he had anything against her. His Lordship: You wished to have a character from her former husband? --- Yes, my Lord. His Lordship --- Is that the custom of Birmingham? -- I don't know; he said he wanted to see her married, and wanted to give her away, with a £5 note, and provide the marriage dinner. His Lordship: Did he offer to sell her, with a halter on her neck? -- No, my Lord; he came and saw her afterwards. The prisoner was found guilty. His Lordship said, the most holy of all contracts -- that of marriage -- ought not to be treated with such levity. He believed he ought to sentence the prisoner to transportation; but he hoped he might, with good conscience, inflict a milder punishment. but which should act as a warning to the prisoner and all others inclined to disregard the marriage vow. The prisoner must be imprisoned for two years.


Stan

[Pilgarlic]

Wow !  Thanks Stan 

This is quite unbeleivable 

So William Bolton was quite happy to see his wife Eliza married off with a £5 carrott attatched. He also paid for the dinner    This is a very strange affair indeed ! I reckon Josiah Mercer is the 2nd husband involved.

I wonder if i can get the full trial transcription somewhere ?

Well done Stan 

Pilgarlic

[stanmapstone]

Hi Pilgarlic

I doubt if any of the court records would have survived, but a local paper could have had a more comprehensive report on such an unusual case.

Stan