In a message dated 24/04/2004 13:26:27 GMT Daylight Time, btones@bigpond.net.au writes: In 1791 James TONES married Mary OVINGTON in Penshaw All Saints. Penshaw All Saints parish records list James TONES (Pitman na of Whickham) as father on baptisms of five children from 1800 to 1815 by his wife Mary SUTTON na of Washington. I am trying to find out if this could be the same James TONES. . It could be - perhaps this is really the same Mary and either (1) you have been using a badly-transcribed copy of the register, or perhaps have mis-read difficult handwriting yourself or perhaps (2) Mary was a widow at the time of her marriage to James Tones, and either she was nee Sutton and her first husband was Mr Ovington or vice-versa. When searching for any Ovington/Sutton and/or Sutton/Ovington marriage and also when searching for a Tones/Ovington one do remember that (a) Tones and Jones can be confused and (b) Sutton and Suthren/Southern/Southeron etc can also be confused. Also be sure to include Northumberland in your searches as well as Co Durham. . Also if Mary TONES (nee OVINGTON) did not die before James started to have children with Mary SUTTON was divorce available around 1800? and is it something a pitman would do? Divorces were rarely granted and when they were it required a Private Act of Parliament, which itself required so much cash (millions of pounds by today's standards) that anyone having it would certainly not have been working as a pitman! The effective answer to your question is therefore "No". . Of course, simply living together, with or without committing bigamy cost comparatively nothing, and was much more common than is often thought. . Geoff Nicholson . 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU Ask for details of NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert, working for YOU.