Err ... Folks I never said dead I said PRESUMED dead. I agree they didn't necessarily have to actually be dead probably most weren't!! Those of us who have passed through the rights of a church marriage will recall the oath "... till death do us part...". The Church's view was that death was the ONLY permissible reason to dissolve a marriage and allow a person to re-marry without incurring the wrath of God. Its transition to statute law was tempered by necessity and thus a PRESUMPTION of death was introduced as a compromise between the Church's teaching about Divorce and the recognition that life must go on. However again the Church imposed rigid conditions on its introduction. I am sure none of the Church Officials were fooled for a minute that the missing partner was actually dead but as long as the Church could legitimately say with hand on heart that it BELIEVED it so then a dissolution of marriage was permissible. The Church clearly could not allow or grant a dissolution of a marriage without compromising its own teachings if both the partners were clearly still at large and visible in society or were known to be alive and kicking be they in the Colony or overseas. To do so would then be a Divorce which was not permitted rather then a dissolution which was. Thus by the partners having absolutely no sight of each other or any other form of contact of any kind either directly or indirectly then it was accepted that the missing partner must be deceased otherwise why would a loving partner not make contact with their spouse? Thus the 'surviving' partner was considered a Widow or Widower and could re-marry without incurring the wrath of the Church. I also agree the separation of water for 7 years was also grounds for a dissolution but this also as with the absence clause above carried with it a prerequisite of no contact of any kind whatsoever during that period which again is another convenient way of presuming death and thus freeing the partners to re-marry. I hope we don't get down to a discussion on the finer points of Law - we could be here forever! One cannot be pedantic over interpretations of Law (even today) and we must remain flexible in interpreting perhaps what was INTENDED not necessarily what was actually stated in the statute books. Cheers Ron Phillips Melbourne Vic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:02 PM Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > Sounds like the first husband shot through and after 7 years missing was > presumed dead leaving the wife free to remarry. > The JP's ruling was noted on the Records in case the first husband should > happen to turned up again. The notation would then stop the wife from > being charged with bigamy > > Ron Phillips > Melbourne > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kfarrow" <kcfarrow@bigpond.net.au> > To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:35 PM > Subject: Strange Certificates. > > >> Dear All, I have a family from Scotland who went to Steiglitz goldmining, >> and had several children. The woman then has children to another man . >> Her marriage certificate said "the above Elizabeth Rankin has been away >> from her former husband seven years and having obtained the advice of a >> Justice of the Peace, received information tha it was lawful to marry >> again after this period. Left her ior deceased on February 18th 1858. >> Has anyone had this on a Marriage certificate? >> Regards Chris Farrow >> >> >> >> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> Victorian place names database >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~auswgw/vic_place_names.htm >> > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb and help it support genealogy > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html >