Marriage, St James, Sydney 2 Dec 1854

[jeanlit]

I have found the following:

"Australia Marriages, 1810-1980", database, Family Search.
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XTCK-7XD
Thomas Hall and Janet Harvie, 02 Dec 1854: citing St James, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ; reference ; FHL microfilm 993,965.

I can't find this marriage in the NSW BMD Indexes.  Can anyone help me please?

I am particularly interested in who the witnesses were.

Jean.

[majm]

 

CassT contacted NSW State Library, on following thread when faced with similar type of dilemma.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=760740.0

JM

[jeanlit]

OK thanks JM, but how did Debra find the missing number for Cass to ask the State Library to look it up?

Jean

[majm]

Hi,

I haven't actually asked Debra how she conducted her research for that info, or what resources she uses.   But ... if you want to use NSW BDM online - marriages index,
My own notes say volume 41 is St James in around 1854-55 Likely that note comes from the NSW State Archives guide.    NSW BDM webpage gives you the Early Church Codes, and CJ is St James C of E.   

So, there's two main options that immediately come to my mind.  Either use the Search by number only (so say start around 1000 and 1854) or use wildcard rather than the search by number option...
* for groom family name
01/12/1854 to 31/03/1855
CJ for district
and with plenty of patience, wade through each page of the index results, after clicking on the heading 'registration number' and read the first few digits of each, to see if there's any missing from the sequence ...

Hope that makes good sense,  if not, please send me a PM and I will take some screen shots and email them to you.

JM

[majm]

line 1024 is not there.   

Several more to follow

[majm]

I will be editing this particular post with line nos as I find them.

1036

EDIT

1024/1854V1854102441B and 1036/1854V1854103641B seem to be MISSING from online index

So that's all I found when searching online marriage index
index using CJ as district, and 01/12/1854-31/03/1855 and * for groom

I was skimming, so it is worthwhile checking my skim.

JM

[majm]

And, of course I checked for 1024/1854 and 1036/1854
using the Search by numbers only and YES ... there's possible explanation for EDP loss in the 1980s...

Jeanlit's one is for a marriage between Thomas HALL and Janet HARVIE.

1024/1854 is also for a Thomas and Janet, as in Volume 81, line 1024, 1854
That Thomas and Janet were Thomas NELSON and Janet JARDINE. 

JM

[Dundee]

I think the problem here is that they haven't corrected an indexing transcription error properly.

The marriage below took place on 19 Oct 1854 at St James.  I am guessing that the line number was originally mistranscribed as 1081 and then corrected to 1061 but both entries were left in the index instead of then entering the correct couple at 1081.

1061/1854
V18541061 41B
HUBBARD, JAMES H
FLAHERTY, EMILY A
CJ

1081/1854
V18541081 41B
HUBBARD, JAMES H
FLAHERTY, EMILY A
CJ

So who is at line 1081?  These marriages fall on either side:

30 Nov 1854
1079/1854
V18541079 41B
DAVISON, JOHN W
MC GUIRE, HANNAH
CJ

2 Dec 1854
1080/1854
V18541080 41B
DICKENSON, BASIL
PURCELL, MARY A
CJ

7 Dec 1854
1082/1854
V18541082 41B
ROBBINS, GEORGE
WELSH, ANN
CJ

7 Dec 1854
1083/1854
V18541083 41B
JONES, PAUL
COURT, ANNE E
CJ

As you can see from the dates it is highly likely that it is your couple who should be indexed at line 1081.

Debra 

[majm]

Yes,  that is likely .  Great work.

JM