Convict permission to marry

[gbugden]

When i look at the dates though there is a correspondence that suggests we are pursuing the right connection:

Samuel Owens Death in QLD 1857 aged 56 therefore born c1801. Married in Newcastle 1827 aged 25 = born c1802.

I can't find his TOL in the SAG index

[aniph]

On An**try .com.au all convict records are free to search until 31 January

[gbugden]

Eliza was married 10 Jan 1861 at Warwick (in the church Manse) to Mark Pitt. She was aged 17 years 8 months 21 days. On this certificate, no father was listed and her mother was given as "Alice". Eliza's usual place of residence was listed as Ipswich. i suspect a rushed, even secret marriage here.

20 months after the marriage, she was living in Brisbane when she gave birth to her daughter ALICE PITT 10 September 1862. Alice PITT's birth entry states that Eliza Jane was born in Laidley and was 19 years of age.

Eliza Jane appears next in Brisbane when she marries John McKinlay on 21st January 1867, aged 23 and 9 months, according to the rights of the Presbyterian church; this marriage certificate  states that her parents were Samuel Owens and Sarah Williams.

[aniph]

His TOL is on SAG, under Owen.

All the convict records seem to be OWEN then it becomes OWENS

[aniph]

Sarah Williams Cert of Freedom is at NSW state archives
date 29 Jul 1833
Item 4/4317
Reel 991

[gbugden]

There are two records on SAG:
TOL
First Name    Samuel
Ship    Mary
District    Patricks plains
TOL No    29/246
Year    1822
Shelf Ref    4/4070
Reel No    912

First Name    Samuel
Ship    Mary
Native Place    Shropshire
Trade or Calling    lab
Trial Place    Warwick Ass
District    Patricks Plains
TOL No    31/471
Year    1822
Shelf Ref    4/4079
Reel No    915
Does this mean two TOLs or two people?

Thanks for the pardon for Sarah!

[aniph]

There is only 1 Samuel Owen on the Mary that I can see

Indexed twice?

[PrueM]

Just popped in to say that the second TOL may be a replacement for the first one - my convict 4xg-grandfather managed to damage his first one, so it was replaced with another several years after the issue of the first.  If you were to obtain both, the earlier of them will probably have been crossed out or cancelled, and the other will have a note saying it's a replacement for the first one.

Cheers
Prue

[majm]

Hi there,

Prue's explanation re TWO ToL makes sense. 

Have you checked out the online newspapers?  Here's a sample for Samuel

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2185026

Cheers,  JM