From Western Post, 6 July 1861: HARGRAVES From our Correspondent. July 3..Miraculous Escape - As a young woman named PARKER was engaged in her domestic affairs in cooking, her dress caught on fire, but was fortunately put out by a person standing by. A little oil was applied to the injured parts, and the patient is recovering. RYALSTONE From our Correspondent Shocking Accident - On Sunday afternoon last a man named Thomas BEANS and two boys named TRAIN went out to shoot wallabies. When they were returning home they had to descend a very steep mounting; while doing so, the younger of the two boys slipped down, and his brother, who was behind carrying the gun, slipped also; while bother were down, the gun, which was an old flint one, went off, inflicting an frightful wound on the knee of the younger boy, smashing the knee cap and thigh bone to pieces. Medical assistance was at once procured, and when the doctor arrived he pronounced immediate amputation necessary, as there was not the slightest probability of saving the limb. Accordingly on Wednesday morning Mr WESTON, surgeon, Rylstone, assisted by Dr KING from Mudgee, amputated the limb just above the knee.. I am happy to add that the little sufferer (who is only eight years of age), is doing as well as can be expected. N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW

From Western Post, 6 July 1861: DISTRICT COURT Tuesday, July 2nd Before Mr Justice DOWLING Barristers present: Mr HOLROYD, instructed by Mr BRODRIBB; Mr WINDEYER, instructed by Mr TEMPLETON. WILTON v DARE - £4 12s Postponed till next sitting by consent. WILSTON v ASHTON - £35 6s 6d for promissory note. Verdict for plaintiff and costs. CHRISTIAN v MORAN - settled. SINDEN v BATES - Promissory note, £25 13s 6d. Verdict for plaintiff and costs. BAYLY v O'BRIEN - postponed till next sitting. JUPP v BLOODSWORTH - Postponed till next sitting. No service. KENNEDY and another v. NEW - settled. SHUTTLEWORTH v KNIGHT - Account for goods sold and delivered. Verdict for plaintiff and costs. DICKSON and Another v KIRKNESS - £28 8s 6d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff LAMONT v JAMES - £11 9s 11d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. BURGESS v WOOD - settled SINDEN v KIRKNESS - £15 promissory note. Verdict for plaintiff. WILIAMS v A TEOU - £21 18s 1d promissory note. Verdict for plaintiff. REUBEN v RYAN - £16 0s 9d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. BRYANT v JAMES - £14 19s 7d for goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff. BRYANT v FORSTER - not served. WILTON v ARNOLD - not served. HARDY v LYONS - settled STA_NS v GUINAN - settled. VAN ROSSUM v BARNES - This was an action for £15 for drugs sold. Mr HOLROYD for plaintiff. Mr WINDEYER for defendant. John J VAN ROSSUM, from Holland, said - in April last he sold to defendant a quantity of drugs for £15; a day or two after the delivery of the articles he called for the money, and was paid £7 on account, and was told by BARNES to call again for the balance, as he though the things were short in quantity and that he should require an allowance made. The nest time he called he consented to deduct £2 for the deficiency in the articles, and signed a receipt for the money, which he handed to BARNES, expecting, as a matter of course, that he would at once "touch" the money; instead of which, he was told he was indebted to the shop. He acknowledged owing something to BARNES' predecessor. Shortly after he saw Mr BARNES and Mr T MILLS together, when he asked defendant either to pay the balance or else return the receipt, the answer he received was "go to Court". Cross-examined by Mr WINDEYER: There was a "composition" at the time about a pair of scales, for which he had made an! allowance. Had previously given a bill of sale for the goods to Mr BLACKMAN. Had no authority to sell, but had given Mr BLACKMAN notice that he had parted with the stock. Could not say when the things were purchased; there were odds and ends of some fifty sorts of drugs, which were useful to him as a physician. Thomas MILLS, innkeeper, was present in May when VAN ROSSUM was claiming a sum of money which BARNES said he had paid with money and a contra account. VAN ROSSUM owed him (MILLS) £3; hearing BARNES was about paying him money, he asked him draw an order on him, so that he might deduct the amount due to him. He was disappointed; VAN ROSSUM persuaded him to pay the amount in full, promising to settle the £3 in a day or two, which he failed to do. The money was still owing. Mr BARNES was put into the box for the defence, and said that he should not have take the goods had not VAN ROSSUM owed him money. He agreed to give £15 for a quantity of drugs, many of which plaintiff failed to deliver; he consequently demanded 56s should be deducted for the deficiency, and gave an order on MILLS for part payment. The drugs were very indifferent; he would not have taken them had VAN ROSSUM not been indebted to him; knowing he had but a poor chance of obtaining his money, he thought it ! would be better to have the drugs on his shelves than the debt in his book. VAN ROSSUM having contracted the debt before defendant had possession of the ship, the set-off could not be allowed. His Honor gave a verdict for £5 4s and £1 15s costs. ROBINSON v HEARD. This was action for £50, the price of a stack of hay sold. Mr WINDEYER, instructed by Mr TEMPLETON for plaintiff. Mr HOLROYD, instructed by Mr BRODRIBB, for defendant. C ROBINSON , a farmer at Wilbertree, agreed to let defendant have a stack of hay; he first asked £60 for it, but not being able to cart it away, he consented to accept £50, and was paid £10 as earnest money; he subsequently received £10 more; the hay had not been removed; he had frequently applied for the balance. Cross-examined by Mr HOLROYD: The hay was in a large paddock, in which were two other stacks, which defendant had purchased of other parties. The ricks were not fenced round. Had an old horse 23 years old; did not think he could grind hay; there were other horses about; had taken every precaution to protect the hay; perhaps 3 cwt was eaten. The paddock was about 42 acres; he and two others rented it; when the hay was sold it was understood that his was to be received first. ! C ROBINSON, jun., son to plaintiff, was present at the time of the bargain; it was made in the paddock; the money was to paid before the hay was removed. Nothing as said about his father taking care of the hay; he had an old horse in the paddock; never saw him near the stack. Mr HOLROYD called Mr HEARD for the defence, who said he had purchased three stacks of hay, which were situated in a paddock at Wilbertree; he paid £10 down to ROBINSON, and offered him more, but he said he did not care about it; not requiring the use of the hay he left it in plaintiff's care till he wanted it. From information received some months afterwards he went to see the stack and found that it had been greatly injured by horses; a ton or more of hay was gone. There were a lot of horses, all lying down very contented, having their bellies full. W STANBURY, soda water maker, was present when the hay was purchased; there was a bit of a "barney' about the price. HEARD eventually gave £50 and put down £10 as a deposit. He said he did not want the hay just then. ROBINSON, in reply, said it would be perfectly safe. He (STANBURY) some time after, accompanied HEARD for the purpose of seeing the stack, when they found they could bury themselves in the holes made by the horses. HEARD offered to send a man for 3 tons, and said he would pay £10 as it was delivered, which he refused. The only interest he had in the hay was he could have a ton or so if he wished. Thos. MIDDLETON, farmer, near ROBINSON's went at the request of HEARD to take some bark off the top of the rick for the purpose of placing it round the sides so as to prevent the horses getting to it, which ROBINSON would not allow. Had a stack in the same paddock. Arthur COX, auctioneer, went out to examine the rick; from its appearance and certain calculations he made he considered that to the best of his judgement about a ton or more had been eaten; was known as the "old horse"; did not feel tempted to taste the hay himself, although it looked very good. Verdict for plaintiff £30. BULLOCK v GORDON. This was an action of trover to recover the value of a horse. The damages were laid at £20. Mr WINDEYER appeared for the plaintiff. Mr HOLROYD for the defendant. From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff it was clear the horse in question had been the plaintiffs, and that he never sold it, and that the defendant converted it. The defence was that the horse was defendants, he having bought it from a Mr LITTLE, who bought it out of the Mudgee pound. To prove this defence, Mr WALSH, the poundkeeper, amongst other persons was called. He proved that on the 1st of August last it was impounded in the Mudgee pound, and after, as he said, following out the requirements of the Impounding Act sold it on the 25th August to one Mr LITTLE. The horse in question was in the neighbourhood of the Court, and when examined certainly did not correspond in some particulars with the entry made in the pound book or with the advertisement in the Government Gazette. He ! had, however, little or no doubt that it was the horse he sold out of the pound. From the testimony of other witnesses it was clear the horse claimed by the plaintiff was the one the defendant bought as above-mentioned. Mr WINDEYER, in reply, contended that the Impounding Act was not complied with, and if were not strictly followed, the sale out of the pound would be a nullity, and hence the plaintiff's property in the horse would be unchanged. The Judge found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages for £12. He said he was satisfied that the horse was originally plaintiff's; the question was had the sale out of the pound changed the property Had the requirements of the Impounding Act been strictly followed then a sale out of a pound would vest the property in the thing so sold in the purchaser. It was clear there that the poundkeeper had not pursued the course required by the law, at any rate in one particular, if not in many others. By the 24th section of the Act, in a case like this, the sale of an impounded beast cannot take place until 24 days shall have elapsed from the time a certain notice shall have appeared in the Government Gazette on the 21st of August, and yet the sale took place on the 25th of the same month. In conclusion his Honor drew the attention of the poundkeeper to certain irregularities that he had been guilty of. N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW

From Western Post, 6 July 1861: Wednesday, 3rd July Jury Cases SHUTTLEWORTH v CARTER - This was action for £173, for goods sold and delivered. Mr HOLROYD appeared for plaintiff, Mr WINDEYER for defendant. Part of the sum sought being for money advanced on a piece of land sold by CARTER to SHUTTLEWORTH, of which he (CARTER) had not title, it being the property of his son, Mr. WINDEYER raised an objection to that part of the case, as not being within the jurisdiction of the Court - which his Honor allowed. A second point was argued, which resulting in Mr HOLROYD withdrawing the case. NUNAN v RAYNER - This was an action for false imprisonment, damages laid at £200. Mr HOLROYD for plaintiff. Mr WINDEYER for RAYNER. Constable MORAN, on oath, stated that on the 10th of April, the defendant called upon Mr LYONS (then a magistrate) for a warrant to take the plaintiff into custody, for having in his possession a horse supposed to have been stolen; LYONS refused to grant a warrant, on the ground that he did not know the name of the party - (which called fro a remark that he did not know the law) - Mr LYONS told him to go with RAYNDER, and take the man into custody, and that he (Mr LYONS) would be responsible. He then went about a mile and half on the Sydney road, where he saw the plaintiff, who had a horse and cart. RAYNER claimed the horse; the man declined to give it up. He then said you will then have to go with me to Mudgee. RAYNER said I don't want to take the man; all I want is the horse. He (MORAN) said, "I cannot take one without the other". RAY! NER replied "very well", and gave him in charge. He then took him to the lock-up . He certainly went out under LYONS instructions. N. M'BEATH said he received NUNAN in the lock-up on the 10th of April; he was confined 48 hours in a cell with other prisoners; he was afterwards released on bail. W NUNAN the plaintiff, said he was going to Mr SINDEN's house on the Sydney Road, when RAYNOR claimed a horse he had in his cart; he asked him if he had a receipt for it; he replied "yes". He refused to the give the horse up. Some time after he was returning to Mudgee and met RAYNOR and a constable; the latter took him to the Mudgee lock-up. He had changed the horse for a heavy one with a person of the name of CLARK, near Molong. Mr BRODRIBB proved having defended with plaintiff; he had considerable trouble with the case, and had not been paid. His Honor having carefully summed up the case, the jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict in favour of the defendant. JACKSON v TUCKER - Mr JAMES appearing for plaintiff. Messrs HOLROYD and WINDEYER for defendant. Mr HOLROYD made an application on behalf of Mr TUCKER that the case be postponed to the October sitting, in consequence of his having dislocated his ankle. Affadavits were read from Dr CUTTING, to the effect that the defendant would incur serious risk by attempting to come into Mudgee, and from Mr CLARK, that defendant was a very material witness in the case. Mr JAMES, on the part of the plaintiff, submitted that the affidavits were not sufficient to sustain the application. Mr CLARK's went for nothing. The accident happened to the defendant some seven weeks' since, and that he was so far recovered that he was able to attend to his business, and had actually cut down the carcass of a bullock; he was consequently, well able to come to Mudgee. The delay sought was solely for the purpose of putting his client to more inconvenience by keeping him longer without his money. His H! onor in consideration of the nature of the accident and the state of the road, granted the application. J C WILLIAMS v T HONEYSETT - This was an action for £85 3s 9d for goods sold and delivered. Messrs HOLROYD and WINDEYER, instructed by Mr TEMPLETON, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr JAMES, solicitor, for the defendant. J C WILLIAMS, storekeeper, swore to the correctness of the account, which was for goods supplied, to defendant's family, and regularly entered into a pass book; a demand was made by letter for the amount; defendant called at the store and asked if he had ever disputed the account, and wished to know why the hay had not been taken away. He replied because its condition was not according to agreement. Had given defendant £15 on account of the hay transaction. His agreement was that he should take 7 tons of mixed hay from a stack, and 2 of Lucerne at £8 the ton, the same to be sound and in good condition. It was to be removed a ton at a time, by plaintiff, who was to cut and cart it away. About 9 months after he sent his son for a load, who found it all cu! t and pressed. Not liking the quality he did not send for any more, on account of its bad condition. Could not swear that he had requested either Mr BARRY or Mr WALKER to try and sell this particular hay. There was no agreement that defendant should take out part of the amount in goods. At this point of the case an objection was raised by counsel to the set-off - who contended that it was a cross claim, and could not be sustained as a set-off in the present action; - and that HONEYSETT's only redress was a separate action against WILLIAMS. His honor said, perhaps it was a hard case; had the action been tried in the Supreme Court, the set-off could have been allowed; the rule, however, did not apply to the District Courts; he therefore, ruled that the set-off could not be allowed. Mr JAMES declined going on with the case, and a verdict was given to plaintiff for £57 5s. Thursday, July 4th NUNAN v RAYNOR - At the commencement of the sitting of the court Mr HOLROYD applied for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. The case before the Magistrate respecting the horse was one of disputed authority; RAYNOR wanted the horse, and could not get it; he consequently gave NUNAN into custody. Mr WINDEYER in addressing the jury had assumed that NUNAN was taken into custody under the authority of Mr LYONS, but there was not evidence to show that he was actually in custody before RAYNOR gave him in charge. In fact, MORAN refused to take action before set in motion by RAYNOR. Mr. WINDEYER argued at great length upon the impropriety of the court setting aside the decision of a jury, especially when that decision was according to evidence, and contended that the constable took the man in custody on the advice of LYONS, who said he would be responsible, and who, no doubt was responsible; the party had their remedy against LYONS. His Honor gran! ted the application for a new trial; the costs to abide the event; remarking that the jury had adopted Mr WINDEYER's construction of the evidence. HEARD v ROBINSON - Mr HOLROYD for plaintiff. Mr WINDEYER for defendant. This was an action for £25, for loss sustained in price on three tons of hay, and damage done to part of a rick through neglect. The evidence in this case was the same as that given in ROBINSON v HEARD. W HEARD provide having purchased a quantity of hay, which ROBINSON was to take proper care of till HEARD carted it away. Four months after the purchase, he (HEARD) hearing that the rick was being eaten by horses, went in company with Messrs STANBURY and COX, to see what loss he had sustained, when he requested that three tons might be sent into Mudgee and he would pay for it as it was delivered. On the following morning he sent a man with a bullock dray, when ROBINSON refused to allow the hay to be touched. Cross-examined by Mr WINDEYER: Could not say how much was damaged; it was very much discoloured. Could not say what COX had valued the damaged it; he thought it was £20. W F STANBURY went with! HEARD to purchase the hay; HEARD not being in a hurry for it, ROBINSON said it could remain, and that it would be as safe as if at home. Went a second time, and found that it had been nibbled away. HEARD gave directions to have three tons sent into Mudgee. The hay was sold cheap in consequence of ROBINSON not being able to cart it. Hay was much dearer when HEARD ordered the three tons to be sent to his house. For the defence - Jessy SMITH, farmer, said he had examined the hay on Wednesday very particularly; there was a portion of it eaten by the cattle; should say from 3 to 4 cwts. The hole was not large enough for a goat to get into he. He pulled some of the hay out; it was perfectly sweet. W COLEMAN had examined and measured the stack with the former witness; 3 or 4 cwts, was the most that could be displaced; the hay was dry, good and sweet. Verdict £4 10s with £3 paid into Court. ***END*** N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW

From Western Post, 3 July 1861: TRESPASSING Persons found trespassing on any of Mr FITZGERALD's runs, driving off cattle or stock of any kind, without giving the necessary information to the undersigned, will be prosecuted. James CAITHNESS, Overseer, Daby Farm. TO Journeyman Shoemakers Wanted by the Undersigned, Two Light Workmen and a Closer. To efficient tradesmen good wages and full employment. John BOYE, Dubbo, June 26. £6 Reward Lost, supposed to have been stolen, a Chestnut Horse, with a white blaze down face, two hind feet white, branded TL on off shoulder, RP on near shoulder. If stolen, £6 will be paid on conviction of thief, otherwise £1 on the horse being restored to Mr BARTON, publican, Pipeclay, or John HING, Pipeclay. Tambaroora Mr SLACK has been appointed agent for "The Western Post and Mudgee Newspaper". N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW

From Western Post, 3 July 1861: SMALL DEBTS COURT Monday July 1st Before the Police Magistrate and E MARLAY, Esq. John BURGESS v E CARTER - £3 for a promissory note. Mr. CLARKE for plaintiff, Mr BRODRIBB for defendant. John BURGESS swore that CARTER had given the note of hand for money lent. The body of the note was in his (BURGESS) handwriting, the signature was CARTER's. E CARTER denied all knowledge of the note; he could only write "after a fashion". Since 1858 he had left it to his son to sign all receipts and notes of hand. W G CARTER had signed a great many receipts for his father; did not know the signature on the note in question; it was not his own writing, and it did not look like his father's. The Magistrates having requested CARTER, sen., to sign his name, it was, on comparing it with the signature on the note, so similar that they gave a verdict for the amount, remarking that perjury had most certainly been committed one way or the other. LAVERS v R SHAW - £7 8s 6d for goods sold and delivered. No presentation. LAVERS v D BUTLER - £2 13s 5d for goods sold and delivered. Verdict £2 1s 6d amount paid into Court. LAVERS v W ROBINS - £2 15s 10d, promissory note due. Not served. LAVERS v Wallace BAYLY - £3 15s good sold. No parties. M LAMROCK v T WEBSTER - £5 promissory note. Verdict £5 and £2 costs. G WALKER v T WEBSTER - £1 19s 6d hay sold. Verdict for plaintiff and £2 costs. John DICKSON v T WEBSTER - £1 11s 6d goods sold. Verdict for plaintiff and £2 costs. W KING v W HATTON - £3 for medical attendance. Struck out - not sufficient notice given. T MILLER v J and W BURGESS - £6 1s 6d due for rent of land. Mr CLARK for BURGESS. E CARTER said he appeared as agent for MILLER, lat of Muswellbrook, now a resident on the "salt water", he being on his way "home". BURGESS rented a house in Perry-street, adjoining was a vacant piece of land which he had let to him at a rental of 1s per week; he afterwards raised the rent to 2s 6d per week. The land had since been sold to MILLER the stonemason, whom he wished to call as a witness. F D MILLER said he had purchased the land of T MILLER; he did not recognize CARTER as the agent and knew nothing about the agreement with BURGESS. Mr BURGESS swore he had paid all that was due, and put in a receipt signed by CARTER for the amount free of all demands. Mr CLARK applied for a nonsuit on the ground that CARTER was not a properly appointed agent; that he had no authority to increase the rent, and even supposing he had he had not given proper notice. Verdict for defendant. G THOMPSON v A B COX - £5 10s wages due. Postponed till July 9th to enable Mr COX to produce a book containing the agreement. J CWILLIAMS v M KEARNEY - £5 17s 2d for order and interest. Defendant admitted the debts and asked for two months to pay the amount. Verdict £5 17s 2d. Costs £1 5s 6d. J C WILLIAMS v H ALBURY - £6 14s 8d for goods sold. Defendant not appearing, a verdict was given for the amount and costs. J C WILLIAMS v J SAUNDERS - £1 17s 6d for goods sold. Verdict for the amount and costs. Ann COHEN v T HEALY, both of Pipe Clay - £1 6s 3d promissory note. Mr CLARKE for defendant. The amount claimed was a balance due being part of the price of two pigs sold to defendant, who denied the delivery of one of the pigs, which had been hunted to death by some drunken friends of Mrs COHEN, who after it fell down got HEALY to bleed it to save its life. The pig, however, died through the ill usage, and was scalded, scraped and salted by Mrs COHEN; it, however, turned so green that she was unable to sell it. HEALY swore the other pig was alive in plaintiff's stye. The evidence was so contradictory that the case was eventually dismissed. E BAYLEY v J SHEPHERD - 5s the value of a sheepskin given to defendant to tan on account of its superior staple, and which it was alleged was spoilt by the defendant colouring it without orders. Withdrawn. J MADDIGAN v J BARRY - £2 16s for fencing eight rods of land. Mr BARRY said that the land belonged to his daughter; he had not seen the fence, and that if it was not better than some he had seen put up by plaintiff, it was not worth the money. Postponed till Tuesday week to allow Mr BARRY to inspect it. J and W BURGESS v J NEATE - £3 16s for goods sold. Settled out of Court. J and W BURGESS v W LYNES - £1 2s for goods sold. Amount paid into Court. W GORE v P M'GRATH - £9 12s 6d for work done. Mr CLARKE for plaintiff, Mr BRODRIBB for defendant. The parties went together to Sydney for loading. GORE not being able to obtain any, an agreement was made that M'GRATH should purchase a quantity of corn which should be taken to Mudgee on GORE's dray, who was to be allowed a share of the profits. M'GRATH advanced money on the road. The corn not realizing so much as was expected, the speculation failed. GORE consequently claimed the amount of carriage, which M'GRATH refused to pay on the ground that he had not arranged to that effect. The case occupied the court a long time, and ended in favour of the defendant. J DICKSON v W SANDRY - £6 17s 6d agistment and price of a horse collar. Mr. DICKSON said he had made an agreement with SANDRY respecting the cultivation of a farm. SANDRY was allowed pasturage for two horses or cows and was to pay for any extra ones; finding more in the paddock than the number allowed he spike t him on the subject and told him he should charge 2s 6d per head, and sent in a bill for the amount. SANDRY said he had returned the collar a day or two after receiving the summons; it was none the worse for the two years wear. He acknowledged having had three or four more cows in the paddock to keep them away from the ricks, which were not secured with a proper fence. Verdict for defendant. Michael DILLON v R F JACKSON - £10 for work done. Postponed until 9th of July. Hugh DOUGHERTY v H TEBBUTT - £6 for hay sold. Mr TEBBUTT said - he was quite willing to pay the amount provided plaintiff could prove the delivery; he was in Sydney at the time and knew nothing about it. Not having put in a plea, the Court gave a verdict for the amount. C B LOWE v J McKENZIE - for £5 15s. Verdict for plaintiff. N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW

Hi All! I'm finally back after my computer overheated (and thus broke down) and internet connection problems... now, back to work... Cheers! Annette From Western Post, July 1861: July 3, 1861 BIRTH At her residence, Gladstone-street, the wife of Mr William RANWELL, of the Western Post, of a son. July 24, 1861 BIRTHS On the 17th instant, at Keen's Swamp, the wife of Mr W RUSSELL, postmaster, of a son, still-born. On the 20th instant, at Broomby, Mrs G H COX, of a daughter. DEATH On the 17th instant, at Keen's Swamp, Mrs W RUSSELL, daughter of the late __ CARSON, Esq., of Drogheda, Ireland, and niece of John CARSON, Esq., of Egeyn Abbey, North Wales, aged 32 years. July 31, 1861 DEATH At Dabee, on the 24th instant, William, youngest son of Robert and Sarah HOWE, aged twelve months and nineteen days. N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW

Hi List, I'm a new subsriber posting my interests in the following families: RILEY William b. 1831, d. 1904 Cullenbone. Married Letitia UNKNOWN John d. 9 Aug 1940 Mudgee. Married Elizabeth Cluff 1889 Mudgee Louis b. 1893 Mudgee, d. 8 May 1973 Lithgow. Married Edith Sarah Elizabeth WILKINSON 1921 Lithgow. STEEN Edward William b. 30 Mar 1880 Gulgong. Married Sarah E LUCAS 1904 Gulgong CLUFF John b. 1845, d. 1910. Married Mary HANLEY 1866 Mudgee Elizabeth b. 1871 Cassilis, d. 1938 Mudgee. Married John RILEY 1889 Gulgong

One Hundred Years ago One Hundred Years ago 28-11-1902 From Merriwa and Cassilis Standard The Government and the Drought In the legislative assembly on Thursday the Premier said he had had a consultation with Mr Carruthers and Mr McGowen in regard to the drought. Next Tuesday a conference will be held between the Premier, Messrs Carruthers, McGowen, Ashton, Waddell, and O'Sullivan, with a view to devising a practical method of giving relief. Streets Experiments of oiling the streets to lay the dust are being tried in Sydney. Crude petroleum at 5d a gallon is being used, and it is reckoned that only two dressings a year will be required. River The river Murray is now lower than ever before in South Australia in the memory of white men. Rain fall for 1903 (will we be lucky) Jan 3.0 Feb 9.4 Mar 56.5 Apr 34.5 May 37.3 Jun 15.6 Jul 30.2 Aug 73.1 Sep192.2 Oct 48.1 Nov78.0 Dec 74.9 MM. By Carole Douch for the Merriwa Historical Society.Inc.

Hi everyone I am hoping someone out there may have knowledge of William and Julia (nee Hartey) Greene or their descendents. I have not been able to confirm whether William and Julia are the parents of the Mary Ann Greene who married my g-grandfather "John Walls" at Mudgee in 1865. Mary Ann's parents names were not included on the marriage certificate. Information provided by the Gulgong Historical Society suggested that William and Julia might be "Mary Ann's" parents. Some of their children were Margaret, Catherine, Julia, Anna, Joshua., Frances, William, Bridget. No details on Julia have been found. The NSW BDM Register does not show any child named Mary Ann being born to William and Julia. William's death certificate (1887) does not indicate the names of his children. William and Julia Greene are included in the First Families 2001 site. Unfortunately, the submitter of the information has not given any contact details. Prior to all of this I believed that Mary Ann's parents were Henry and Ann (nee Courtney) Green/e - both convicts. Birth year etc all checked out. Any help to sort out my confusion would be greatly appreciated. Deanne Walls mcinnes.n@bigpond.com.au

Hi everyone I am hoping someone out there may have knowledge of William and Julia (nee Hartey) Greene or their descendents. I have not been able to confirm whether William and Julia are the parents of the Mary Ann Greene who married my g-grandfather "John Walls" at Mudgee in 1865. The NSW BDM Register does not show any child named Mary Ann being born to William and Julia. Until I found reference to this Greene family on the First Families 2001 site, I believed that Mary Ann's parents were Henry and Ann (nee Courtney) Green/e - both convicts. Thanks to the Gulgong Historical Society I know that William died in 1887. No details on Julia have been found. Some of their children were Margaret, Catherine, Julia, Anna, Joshua., Frances, William, Bridget. Any help to sort out my confusion would be greatly appreciated. Deanne Walls

Hi I doing the Bosler family tree,do anyone now any of the descendants of John Martin Bosler born in Germany who married Johanna B Hellar in 1835, Germany Their child Louisa Bosler was born 1856 in Mudgee .Thanks. Regards Peter Proctor mogulones@ozemail.com.au

One Hundred Years ago 21-11-1902 From Merriwa and Cassilis Standard The steamer "Anglo Sayou" arrived in Sydney on the 7th November from Buenos Aures with 5640 tons of maize and 180 tons of hay. At one station in the Canoblas electorate 100.000 pounds has been spent on artificially feeding stock, while sheep have cost from 10s to 15s per head to feed. On Tuesday the thermometer went up to 104 deg in the shade. The pastures are beginning to look dry, the grasses now seeding. Many of the settlers are stockless, but they still have the land and in all probability, now that horses are fat, a good deal of land will be turned over between now and the autumn for next season's crops. Cassilis. We are glad to learn that a long felt want is to be supplied in Cassilis shortly by the opening of a fruit shop, fresh fruit being a very necessary article if diet in summer, especially for young people. Rylstone last week boasted of having two resident doctors, the latest being Dr. GH Moorhouse, who some years ago was located at Coolah. By Carole Douch for the Merriwa Historical Society.Inc.

Peter Where was Sophia born ? Where did John & Letitia marry ? Jennifer

Hi I doing the my family tree, do anyone have the descendants of John Stewart who married Letitia Neith child Sophia H Stewart Born abt.1828. Thanks. Regards Peter Proctor mogulones@ozemail.com.au

Hi. everyone I am new to the list. My name is Helen Fitzgerald, and I am looking for the parents of MICHAEL FITZGERALD and ELIZABETH BOWEN. They were married 22 Aug 1880 at Timbrebongie. The residence listed for both is Timbrebongie. Both sets of parents not listed on the marriage transcription. They had eleven children of which six survived, the fourth child b 1887 JOHN FRANCIS was my husbands grandfather. I am hoping that somebody out there who may have an interest in this family will contact me. Any help would be appreciated, Thanks you. Helen

Got you in my neck of the woods Alice Pam Qld ----- Original Message ----- From: Alice Erickson To: AUS-NSW-PILLIGA-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:33 AM Subject: Hullo Just testing - Alice ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Greetings all. Is anyone aware of any family histories for the surname HARDY at Narrabri. I would appreciate the information. Regards, Bill

Just testing - Alice

Hi Does anyone have any information on the above family names in the Gulgong area. I have a Matilda Lillias FITZSIMMONS, father John FITSIMMONS, mother Elizabeth COOMBER/COOMBES. Thanks in advance Maria Central Coast, NSW Australia

Hi Kevin, If you use the website below you will find reference to both Murrawal and Sunnyside, using the search facilities. regards, Lins. http://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/geog/search/gnr_websearch.display