Hi to all, State Records of NSW have gone onto YouTube. There is a very good section on how to do Convict Research http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j2nwT2A3gs&feature=channel_page Carol

Hi Pauline That George Palmer did not complete his sentence of 14 years as he was recommended for a Conditional Pardon in 1847 and it was received in 1850. No permission to marry noted in my files. There was a George Palmer - convict per ' Manlius' who received permission to marry a Caroline Rowe in 1846 in Yass. Regards Lesley Uebel mailto:ckennedy@bigpond.net.au CLAIM A CONVICT http://users.bigpond.net.au/convicts/index.html -----Original Message----- From: aus-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:aus-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Pauline Wood Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:56 PM To: AUS-CONVICTS@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUS-CON] PALMER.George I have found a George Palmer who was a convict arriving on the "Strathfieldsay in 1838/Prisoners No 36/1171. We have a George Palmer ( Palmour) marrying ( maybe not) to a Elizabeth Munro in the Bathurst area around 1845. Can any one help me find who this George Palmer did marry after he finished his 14 years???? I did find a Elizabeth Munro arriving on the ship " Catharine Jamieson 1841,Assisted migrant, but can not find any more about her at all,can any one help me please. Regards Pauline. Brisbane.Australia.

Pauline, I have not been able to find any marriage of a George PALMER to an Elizabeth MUNRO.. in either spelling of PALMER.. I did however find a marriage for a George PALMER to an Elizabeth MUTTON in 1853 in Wesleyan Methodist Church in Bathurst. < Previous | Start | 1 | End | Next > Registration Number<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/IndexSearch?form=IndexingSearch&SessionID=15550608&event=marriages&sname=Palmer&gname=George&fname=&mname=Elizabeth&frange=1829&trange=1929&place=&x=0&y=0&reorder=regno> Groom's Surname<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/IndexSearch?form=IndexingSearch&SessionID=15550608&event=marriages&sname=Palmer&gname=George&fname=&mname=Elizabeth&frange=1829&trange=1929&place=&x=0&y=0&reorder=col2> Groom's Given Name(s)<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/IndexSearch?form=IndexingSearch&SessionID=15550608&event=marriages&sname=Palmer&gname=George&fname=&mname=Elizabeth&frange=1829&trange=1929&place=&x=0&y=0&reorder=col3> Bride's Last Name at Time of Marriage<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/IndexSearch?form=IndexingSearch&SessionID=15550608&event=marriages&sname=Palmer&gname=George&fname=&mname=Elizabeth&frange=1829&trange=1929&place=&x=0&y=0&reorder=col4> Bride's Given Name(s)<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/IndexSearch?form=IndexingSearch&SessionID=15550608&event=marriages&sname=Palmer&gname=George&fname=&mname=Elizabeth&frange=1829&trange=1929&place=&x=0&y=0&reorder=col5> District<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/IndexSearch?form=IndexingSearch&SessionID=15550608&event=marriages&sname=Palmer&gname=George&fname=&mname=Elizabeth&frange=1829&trange=1929&place=&x=0&y=0&reorder=col8> * *Purchase Certificate* V1853226 85/1853 PALMER GEORGE MUTTON ELIZABETH A IG Buy Now<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/Index/IndexingOrder.cgi/add?SessionID=15550608&Status=H&nregno=V1853226+85/1853&certtype=marriage&nameofsub=GEORGE+PALMER+and+ELIZABETH+A+MUTTON&sname=Palmer&gname=George&fname=&mname=Elizabeth&trange=1929&frange=1829&place=&event=marriages> The George PALMER that arrived on the Strathfieldsay was given a certificate of freedom in 1850. See below Surname Firstname Alias Vessel Year CFNo Date Item Reel Remarks Order PALMER George Phoenix 1828 34/1470 20 Oct 1834 4/4325 993 TL 33/167 PALMER George Strathfieldsay 1836 50/0019 15 Jan 1850 4/4413 1026 TL 42/2077 it looks as though they had a great list of children.. somewhere around the 10-13 mark?? quite amazing in that time that they only lost one baby... unnamed in 1860. I hope that this helps you.. Sue.

I have found a George Palmer who was a convict arriving on the "Strathfieldsay in 1838/Prisoners No 36/1171. We have a George Palmer ( Palmour) marrying ( maybe not) to a Elizabeth Munro in the Bathurst area around 1845. Can any one help me find who this George Palmer did marry after he finished his 14 years???? I did find a Elizabeth Munro arriving on the ship " Catharine Jamieson 1841,Assisted migrant, but can not find any more about her at all,can any one help me please. Regards Pauline. Brisbane.Australia.

Hi All, The Irish Times is allowing free access from the 27 Mar to 6 Apr to celebrate their 150 years of publication. 1859-2009 http://www.irishtimes.com/150/ This might help track down some of those elusive Irish ancestors. Carol Wood

At 12:05 PM 29/03/2009, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Gavin and Marites Spicer >To: aus-convicts@rootsweb.com >Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:51 PM >Subject: Lovelock to Currie application to marry? > > >Hi >I sent this message on the 18-3-09 but I did not receive any mail >from aus-convicts@rootsweb.com untill the 25-3-09 so I am not sure >if there was a problem with my computer or not. if there was an >answer I did not receive it. Hence my posting the same message once again. > >I am trying to find information on Robert Lovelock's application to >marry in 1847 to Jane Curry (Currie). He was a convict arriving in >Australia on the Andromeda 1833. I have had a search at state >records in the application to marry for convicts but he is not >there. and on his ticket of leave recommendations for a conditional >pardon is not until the 1850's. So as he is still considered to be a >convict with a ticket of leave I am assuming there must be an >application to marry some where. Could some kind person please point >me in the right direction. I am interested in the age stated for >Jane Curry when the application was submitted. Thank you. > >Kind Regards > >Gavin Gavin, I had a quick look at the Applications to Marry on ancestry and wasn't able to find an entry for Robert Lovelock and Jane Curry (Currie). The only Robert Lovelock was to an Ann Williams - permission granted 3 Dec 1845. Cheers, Michelle --------------------- Michelle Watson michelle@webcon.net.au Watson/Canet Family History - http://watsoncanet.webcon.net.au/ Researching: Watson, Canet, Harper, Whitley, Rann, Hamilton, O'Donnell, Wilkes, Freeman, Munro, Brown, Baker, Hughes, Davis, Sandilands

Hi Lesley Thomas' brother Phillip Cassidy, also Hercules II 1830, does appear in the 1841 census but has the same convict status as Thomas. Do you have any idea why that might be?? Thanks Veronica ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lesley Uebel" <ckennedy@bigpond.net.au> To: <aus-convicts@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [AUS-CON] Thomas Cassidy from Fermanagh - Hercules > Hi Veronica > > He certainly could have been employed as a Constable.... please read > notice > below and it will explain everything. > > > Thomas will not appear in the 1841 Census as that only lists the names of > householders and Thomas was still a serving convict at that time. > > Thomas didn't receive a Certificate of Freedom - he received a 2nd Class > Conditional Pardon. Being in receive of such a CP meant he could not leave > Australia. Convicts in receipt of a Ticket of Leave had to remain in the > district noted on that TOL > > ---- > Government Order 30th May 1831 > > It having become necessary, in order to reduce the expense of the Police > Establishment, to revise the present system, His Excellency the Governor > is > pleased to order the following regulations to be established: viz. > > 1. Prisoners of the Crown shall be employed as Constables > > 2. Every Prisoner who shall be so employed, shall receive a Ticket of > Leave at > the end of three years service, provided the Magistrates under whom he has > been > employed, shall report that he deserves that indulgence. > > 3. At the expiration of five years further service, that is from the date > of his > receiving a Ticket of Leave, every prisoner shall, on producing a > Certificate > from the Magistrates as above, receive a Conditional Pardon. > > 4. No man will be admitted into the Establishment, unless he be able > bodied, > active and intelligent; nor unless he produces satisfactory testimonials > of good > conduct; nor will his services entitling him to a Ticket of Leave commence > until > he shall have been two years in the Colony, although he may have been > previously > appointed a constable. > > 5. Misconduct during the period of a prisoner's service as a constable, > will > deprive him of all claim to the advantages held out; and it will be the > duty of > the Magistrates immediately to report to the Colonial Secretary, for the > Governors information, whenever a constable shall misbehave or become > unfit for > the duty of his position > > 6. The Constables will be allowed pay, while employed as above, at the > rate of > one shilling and nine pence a day, They are to provide themselves with > food and > clothing. > > 7. They will, of course, be entitled to the usual rewards for apprehending > runaways etc. > > 8. These Constables will be removed occasionally from one district to > another; > and will not be able to cultivate land for themselves or others, or engage > in > business or employ themselves in any manner not immediately connected with > their > duty. > > 9. .Any person who shall employ any of these or any other paid Constable, > contrary to their duty, will be made responsible for the same as far as > circumstances may permit. > > 10. The Governor trusts, for the important nature of the boon now held > out, that > the services of an efficient body of Police will be ensured; and that > they, with > the zealous co-operation of the Magistrates in the arrangements now > promulgated, > will carry on the duty of the several districts at a much less expense to > the > public than hitherto. > > 11. The new organisation of the Mounted Police, which has proved the means > of > re-establishing the tranquility of the country, will render it unnecessary > to > employ the Constabulary in the pursuit of Bushrangers, should they again > disturb > the Colony, and a much smaller number of Constables will consequently be > employed. The arrangements which have been made already enabled the > Government > to dispense with the services of the sixty five Constables and a further > reduction will shortly be carried into effect. > > > By His Excellency's Command > Alexander McLeay > > > Regards > Lesley Uebel > mailto:ckennedy@bigpond.net.au > CLAIM A CONVICT > http://users.bigpond.net.au/convicts/index.html > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: aus-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:aus-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Veronica > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:28 PM > To: aus-convicts@rootsweb.com > Subject: [AUS-CON] Thomas Cassidy from Fermanagh - Hercules > > > Hello everyone > > I am looking to find out how a convict, who had a life sentence, could > also be a > constable before he got his ticket of leave? A distant cousin has found > details > of the following reference in the 'Hayes Collection" in the University of > Queensland Library; "Item 1415. List of persons charged by Thomas Cassidy > per > "Hercules" attached to Government Domain Parramatta (as Overseer and > Constable). > March 1831 - November 1837. Signed Henry Bailey, Clerk of Petty Sessions, > Parramatta.21.ms". > > It is unclear how he became a constable during this period, given he had a > life > sentence and did not receive his ticket of leave until 1838. I am unable > to > find any reference to him in the NSW 1841 census, which also seems odd > given he > didn't acquire a certificate of freedom until 1846. Could he have left > the > state during this time? My understanding is that his TOL would usually > have > required he stay within the district of Parramatta? > > Any help appreciated > > Veronica > > NT, Australia > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > AUS-CONVICTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Patrick I have finally been in touch with Seamus and he has given me some great info, thanks for the tip! Cheers Veronica ----- Original Message ----- From: <PatrickJones04@aol.com> To: <aus-convicts@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [AUS-CON] Cassidy's from Fermanagh > hi veronica if you can contact seamus mccanny on the fermanagh site > fergold > he will give you some information on the cassidys who fell foul of a land > lord > in a love triangle of sorts,semus gave a lecture on the subject at a local > historical meeting in boho co fermanagh-a local folk song edward from > lough > ernes shores was also sung--see how you get on and get back to me if you > have > no luck cheers paddy. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > AUS-CONVICTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you for your help Lyn. Regards Loretta Hi Loretta, NP in convict records usually stands for "Native Place". Lyn > Hello > > I have a convict, James Egan from Dublin, arriving in Tasmania aboard the > Constant in 1843. He is Database number 20949 under Eagan. In item number > CON - 14/1/21 (indents?) on page 92, in the remarks column, it has F James > at - what looks to be - NP. B Thos. S Mary Ann. > We presume this to be F for father, B for brother, etc., but can someone > please tell me what NP would be? > > regards Loretta > >

Hello I have a convict, James Egan from Dublin, arriving in Tasmania aboard the Constant in 1843. He is Database number 20949 under Eagan. In item number CON - 14/1/21 (indents?) on page 92, in the remarks column, it has F James at - what looks to be - NP. B Thos. S Mary Ann. We presume this to be F for father, B for brother, etc., but can someone please tell me what NP would be? regards Loretta

Hi Loretta, NP in convict records usually stands for "Native Place". Lyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loretta" <retmcp@mcmedia.com.au> To: <aus-convicts@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:50 PM Subject: [AUS-CON] James Egan > Hello > > I have a convict, James Egan from Dublin, arriving in Tasmania aboard the > Constant in 1843. He is Database number 20949 under Eagan. In item number > CON - 14/1/21 (indents?) on page 92, in the remarks column, it has F James > at - what looks to be - NP. B Thos. S Mary Ann. > We presume this to be F for father, B for brother, etc., but can someone > please tell me what NP would be? > > regards Loretta > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > AUS-CONVICTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

----- Original Message ----- From: Gavin and Marites Spicer To: aus-convicts@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:51 PM Subject: Lovelock to Currie application to marry? Hi I sent this message on the 18-3-09 but I did not receive any mail from aus-convicts@rootsweb.com untill the 25-3-09 so I am not sure if there was a problem with my computer or not. if there was an answer I did not receive it. Hence my posting the same message once again. I am trying to find information on Robert Lovelock's application to marry in 1847 to Jane Curry (Currie). He was a convict arriving in Australia on the Andromeda 1833. I have had a search at state records in the application to marry for convicts but he is not there. and on his ticket of leave recommendations for a conditional pardon is not until the 1850's. So as he is still considered to be a convict with a ticket of leave I am assuming there must be an application to marry some where. Could some kind person please point me in the right direction. I am interested in the age stated for Jane Curry when the application was submitted. Thank you. Kind Regards Gavin

Hi Gavin, With one of my convict ancestors, it was noted on the marriage certificate. It stated that " ? and ? were married at the Church at ..., by Banns with consent of His Ex. the Governor this .... day of ........1845" Someone else may be able to tell you where you can find the permissions to marry index. Have you looked at the NSW State Records website to view what they have in that regard Lyn ----- Original Message ----- From: " Gavin and Marites Spicer" <gavinandmarites5@dodo.com.au> To: <aus-convicts@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:05 AM Subject: [AUS-CON] Lovelock to Currie application to marry? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gavin and Marites Spicer > To: aus-convicts@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:51 PM > Subject: Lovelock to Currie application to marry? > > >

Hi Leeanne I think you may mean William Leary. There were two with the same name who arrived on the Eliza II (2) from Ireland in 1829. Both were tried in Tipperary in 1828 - one received a 7 year sentence and the other Life. As you mention a Conditional Pardon then I assume you mean the one who received a Life sentence. This one, according to my records also had an alias of Learney. He was recommended for a CP in 1844 and received it in 1845. I note that the State Records have his name is Lamey, but the Indent states Leary, William alias Learny The one who received Life was about 26 years old when he arrived - the other about 34. What other information do you have? regards Lesley Uebel mailto:ckennedy@bigpond.net.au CLAIM A CONVICT http://users.bigpond.net.au/convicts/index.html -----Original Message----- From: aus-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:aus-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Leeanne Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:34 PM To: AUS-CONVICTS@rootsweb.com Subject: [AUS-CON] LAMEY Looking for info on William Lamey He worked at Keepit Station on Conditional Parole Married Bertha Around 1835 ?? 2 Children Jane & John There are listings on the Eliza II but there are 2 men with same name???? Makes it confusing Year 1829 When looking at records as there were 2 men with the same name how do I know which one the record is for ?? Leeanne

----- Original Message ----- From: "Leeanne" <lgo00921@bigpond.net.au> To: <AUS-CONVICTS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 5:33 PM Subject: [AUS-CON] LAMEY Hi Leeanne Looking for info on William Lamey He worked at Keepit Station on Conditional Parole Married Bertha Around 1835 ?? >2 Children Jane & John There are listings on the Eliza II but there are 2 men with same name???? >Makes it confusing Year 1829 When looking at records as there were 2 men with the same name how do I know > which one the record is for ?? Keepit Station. LAMEY and HARTNETT have come up before Go to http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search type in Keepit Station I think Jane LAMEY m WILLIAM HARNETT? .....They moved north and settled in Moree We have an old book on Moree settlers in my local FHS library . Has quite a bit of info on the HARNETTs Sometime back I saw a family group photo . Jane LAMEYs mother was an aboriginal Bye MargM Beautiful NSW Central Coast NSW

Looking for info on William Lamey He worked at Keepit Station on Conditional Parole Married Bertha Around 1835 ?? 2 Children Jane & John There are listings on the Eliza II but there are 2 men with same name???? Makes it confusing Year 1829 When looking at records as there were 2 men with the same name how do I know which one the record is for ?? Leeanne

At 12:09 PM 27/03/2009, you wrote: >Michelle, When I looked for a registered marriage for Thomas and Mary.. the >entries that I posted for 1840 were the only ones I could see on the >index... both for 1840.. are you saying they married before that?? No, they married in Apr 1840. But they had two approvals to marry, one from 1839 and one from Jan 1840. >I am not sure about the church issue.. quite likely there was no other >option. > >I do alot of transcribing.. and often all possibilities for a name will be >entered just in case it is wrong. (I think that is what has happened here) >However it cannot be ruled out that there was an alias... until you have >documentery evidence to prove it!! I think what you said before about accent might have played a part. She never seemed to use any other name, so I don't think it's an alias. My suspicion is that maybe they got the first permission and the paperwork got lost and they got another one just to make sure they were covered. >You can check their register entries online... at the NSW births deaths and >marriages.. they have online indexes 1788-1958 for marriages. I feel it >unlikely that they married twice.. just that the registration took place >(most likely once in Macquarie and once in Sydney at the main registration >point) If I understand it correctly the V...... 26 B part tells where it was >registered and the year. I am not sure how much the certificate would be >able to tell you as they are church records.. and quite often very little is >held on them. I recommend using a transcription agent ( it will only cost >you $20 for both) and that way you dont waste a heap of money to get no >further. Well, I've ordered them so we will see! >Ohh I didnt mention earlier the Port Macquaried.. Church of England thing.. >is mentioned in a table of early church codes on the births deaths and >marriages website.. so when you look up the certificates scroll to the very >bottom of the page and you will see the link to the church codes it will >open up in a separate window. Yes, I checked that. Very handy. I've got a few others I will go back and check that info for. >I am sorry I couldnt be of more help with this little puzzle.. I have >entered everything I can think of to help. > >Sue. You've given me plenty to work with, much appreciated. Cheers, Michelle --------------------- Michelle Watson michelle@webcon.net.au Watson/Canet Family History - http://watsoncanet.webcon.net.au/ Researching: Watson, Canet, Harper, Whitley, Rann, Hamilton, O'Donnell, Wilkes, Freeman, Munro, Brown, Baker, Hughes, Davis, Sandilands

Michelle, When I looked for a registered marriage for Thomas and Mary.. the entries that I posted for 1840 were the only ones I could see on the index... both for 1840.. are you saying they married before that?? I am not sure about the church issue.. quite likely there was no other option. I do alot of transcribing.. and often all possibilities for a name will be entered just in case it is wrong. (I think that is what has happened here) However it cannot be ruled out that there was an alias... until you have documentery evidence to prove it!! You can check their register entries online... at the NSW births deaths and marriages.. they have online indexes 1788-1958 for marriages. I feel it unlikely that they married twice.. just that the registration took place (most likely once in Macquarie and once in Sydney at the main registration point) If I understand it correctly the V...... 26 B part tells where it was registered and the year. I am not sure how much the certificate would be able to tell you as they are church records.. and quite often very little is held on them. I recommend using a transcription agent ( it will only cost you $20 for both) and that way you dont waste a heap of money to get no further. Ohh I didnt mention earlier the Port Macquaried.. Church of England thing.. is mentioned in a table of early church codes on the births deaths and marriages website.. so when you look up the certificates scroll to the very bottom of the page and you will see the link to the church codes it will open up in a separate window. I am sorry I couldnt be of more help with this little puzzle.. I have entered everything I can think of to help. Sue.

At 02:10 AM 27/03/2009, you wrote: >Hi Michelle, one can only assume that the permission was denied the first >time.. and they reapplied a couple of years later.. one or both of them may >have completed their sentences or maybe they have served "good" time.. That's the thing, permission was granted both times. >basically they behaved themselves and thought as such they should be able to >apply again. Have you tried looking to find out when they did get married >that should give you a clue.. if they didnt marry until after 1840 then you >know that they obviously didnt get permission earlier. Remember in these >early times the writing was practically undeciferable and most people could >neither read or write and often had heavy accents.. and its all basically up >to the person writing their name. So perhaps the original was difficult to >read.. hence the errors with names.. or perhaps she used an alias.. it would >really take a marriage registration that she bore witness to- to confirm her >actual name. Thomas was free at the time of both applications but Mary was still under bond. I think the error in her name was just a transcription error on the original document. They were married in Apr 1840. >Ok.. so they were married in the Church of England in Port Macquarie in 1840 >according to registration entries. I assume that it has been registered >twice because of the Convict status.. I know no other reason for a double >entry the CK part of it is the district in which the registration took >place.. that is the Church of England Port Macquarie part. So from what you've posted below, they got married twice as well! I think I'll have to order the certificates and see what's on there. Presumably there was no other option than C of E at the time, even though both were Catholic? > V1840120 44B/1840 WOOTTON THOMAS O'DONNELL MARY CK > V1840690 24B/1840 WOOTTON THOMAS O'DONNELL MARY CK > >I Notice that Thomas Wootton got his certificate of freedom in 1830.. makes >me wonder why he was denied permission to marry the first time. perhaps as >Mary had only been here a short time.. > >Anyway I hope this helps > >Sue. Sue, Yes, it's been a great help and much appreciated. Cheers, Michelle --------------------- Michelle Watson michelle@webcon.net.au Watson/Canet Family History - http://watsoncanet.webcon.net.au/ Researching: Watson, Canet, Harper, Whitley, Rann, Hamilton, O'Donnell, Wilkes, Freeman, Munro, Brown, Baker, Hughes, Davis, Sandilands

Hi Michelle, one can only assume that the permission was denied the first time.. and they reapplied a couple of years later.. one or both of them may have completed their sentences or maybe they have served "good" time.. basically they behaved themselves and thought as such they should be able to apply again. Have you tried looking to find out when they did get married that should give you a clue.. if they didnt marry until after 1840 then you know that they obviously didnt get permission earlier. Remember in these early times the writing was practically undeciferable and most people could neither read or write and often had heavy accents.. and its all basically up to the person writing their name. So perhaps the original was difficult to read.. hence the errors with names.. or perhaps she used an alias.. it would really take a marriage registration that she bore witness to- to confirm her actual name. Ok.. so they were married in the Church of England in Port Macquarie in 1840 according to registration entries. I assume that it has been registered twice because of the Convict status.. I know no other reason for a double entry the CK part of it is the district in which the registration took place.. that is the Church of England Port Macquarie part. V1840120 44B/1840 WOOTTON THOMAS O'DONNELL MARY CK Buy Now<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/Index/IndexingOrder.cgi/add?SessionID=15448607&Status=H&nregno=V1840120+44B/1840&certtype=marriage&nameofsub=THOMAS+WOOTTON+and+MARY+O'DONNELL&sname=Wootton&gname=&fname=&mname=&trange=1958&frange=1788&place=&event=marriages> V1840690 24B/1840 WOOTTON THOMAS O'DONNELL MARY CK Buy Now<http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/Index/IndexingOrder.cgi/add?SessionID=15448607&Status=H&nregno=V1840690+24B/1840&certtype=marriage&nameofsub=THOMAS+WOOTTON+and+MARY+O'DONNELL&sname=Wootton&gname=&fname=&mname=&trange=1958&frange=1788&place=&event=marriages> I Notice that Thomas Wootton got his certificate of freedom in 1830.. makes me wonder why he was denied permission to marry the first time. perhaps as Mary had only been here a short time.. Anyway I hope this helps Sue.