oh my goodness. I think I was at it too long all right. Adam & Mary WRIGHT had their issue between 1735 and 1745, not 1735 and 1735 -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dillon Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: oops, typing errors - Re: [nz] Richard WARNER & Eliza WRIGHT, Abraham VOLLER Aarggh! I spent so long on the email below that I made confusing typing errors. Adam WRIGHT & Jane PRICE married 1750 not 1850. Jane PRICE was born about 1730 not 1830. Adam & Mary WRIGHT had their children between 1735 and 1735, not 1735 and 1835. Peter -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dillon Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 9:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [nz] Richard WARNER & Eliza WRIGHT, Abraham VOLLER This is for the researchers in NZ who are on the trail of Richard WARNER & Eliza WRIGHT & family, and also Abraham VOLLER & family, who arrived at Nelson in 1842 having previously resided at Ore (Oare) which is a parish immediately west of Hastings in Sussex, with Hastings having long since swallowed it up . There are plenty of you out there. It’s a bit long and is going to get complicated, so give up now if those couples are not of interest to you. I’ve been looking at Ancestry.com trees that include Richard WARNER & Eliza WRIGHT and am alarmed that many are copying unproven information from other trees that is likely to be wrong. The trouble is that certain aspects of Richard’s and Eliza’s trees at the limits of knowledge are hard to crack, and when one or two people put up on Ancestry what, in the absence of acceptable evidence, amounted to guesses, others followed suit. Now newcomers to Ancestry are noticing the questionable information appearing on a lot of trees, deciding it must be right, and adding it to their trees. I feel that they are blinding themselves to considering other possibilities. >From information at the NZ and Ore ends, The parents of Richard WARNER and Eliza WRIGHT are straightforward, it is the ancestry beyond them that is problematic. We know that Richard WARNER was the son baptised 10 Mar 1819 at All Saints parish, Hastings, Sussex to Joseph & Elizth WARNER whose abode was St Clements in Hastings. Joseph & Elizabeth are in the 1841 census with their son Robert who was baptised 21 June 1822 at St Clements parish. Richard & his wife Eliza WRIGHT who married at Ore in 1841 were living in the household of Eliza’s parents, James & Elizabeth WRIGHT, in 1841 not long before emigrating to NZ. Some trees at Ancestry have Joseph & Elizabeth born in Sussex but the 1841 census says they were not born in the census county.. 13 Mar 1841 Marriage @ St Helens Church, Ore, Hastings, England by Geo.S.FAUGHT, Curate : Richard WARNER (full age, bachelor, blacksmith, father Joseph WARNER labourer) = Eliza WRIGHT (full age,spinster, father James WRIGHT labourer) Witnesses William GILES & Elizabeth HEAD. [ Richard, Eliza, William & Elizabeth all signed ‘X’ his/her mark. Elizabeth is Eliza’s sister ] [ BDM sighted @ St Catherine’s House London 1988 ] 06 Jun 1841 Census of England & Wales N=not born in county Y=born in county @ ???? Cottages, All Saints, Hastings, Sussex Joseph WARNER 70 N Elizabeth WARNER 60 N Robert WARNER 18 Y Samuel DUNT? DUNK? HUNT? 13 Sweep Y 06 Jun 1841 English Census of England & Wales @ Prospect Cottages, Ore, Sussex James WRIGHT 60 Ag. Lab. yes Elizabeth WRIGHT 60 yes Aaron WRIGHT 15 yes Amelia WRIGHT 09 yes Richard WARNER 20 Blacksmith yes Eliza WARNER 20 yes Richard WARNER 3 months yes Joseph WARNER died in the Workhouse at Ore on 16 Jul 1851 and wife Elizabeth died 9 Nov 1851 at Ore. So Joseph & Elizabeth should both be in the 1851 census (30 Mar 1851) – but no one can find them. So frustrating. I’ve looked for VOLLER as well as WARNER, for reasons which are explained much further below. We need the information to know where they were born as there are far too many Richard & Elizabeth combos in Sussex and surrounding counties’ records who might be them. Joseph wasn’t in the workhouse at the 1851 census, so he probably was admitted to the hospital section of the workhouse when he was on his way out. That happened a lot with poor people on their last legs, with workhouses often serving as something like a hospice for people in that situation, and in fact the workhouse at Ore did become St Helens Hospital later. When I visited in 1988 one of the later buildings of the workhouse across the road from the older part was the administrative centre for the hospital. The hospital has been pulled down since. Quite a few trees at Ancestry say that Elizabeth’s maiden name was SHOESMITH, and some even provide a baptism & parents. However that appears to be based on the informant at the death of Joseph at the workhouse in 1851 being Joseph SHOESMITH. Joseph SHOESMITH was merely an inmate at the workhouse whose evidence as the informant at the death was that he was that he was present at the death . That doesn’t qualify him as a relative, and even if it did it could be on the WARNER side just as easily on Elizabeth’s side, after all it was Joseph’s death not Elizabeth’s death. The 1851 census calls Joseph a mariner born at Hastings in Sussex, whereas neither Joseph nor Elizabeth was born in Sussex according to the 1841 census. As I say above, Richard WARNER married Eliza WRIGHT at Ore in 1841 after which they lived in the household at Ore of Eliza’s parents, James & Elizabeth WRIGHT. A number of Ancestry trees have Elizabeth STACE as the wife of James WRIGHT, they marrying at Dallington parish in 1808. That follows from a suggestion I made to others many years ago. I do think it is correct, but proving it is another thing. Many years BI (Before Internet) a researcher in Kent used SOG East Sussex baptismal and marriage databases to put together the family of Edward & Elizabeth WRIGHT, they being travellers, with one of their issue being James the father of Eliza WRIGHT who married Richard WARNER. Edward and Elizabeth had at least 9 children all over Sussex but with most baptised at Hailsham parish which seems to have been their hub of operations. Edward’s son Michael married Lydia RIPLEY and daughter Maria married Mark RIPLEY. The RIPLEYs in Sussex were romany travellers – it is very hard to find a RIPLEY in Sussex census information in the 1800s without an occupation redolent of a travelling lifestyle. Their hub appears to have been Hellingly which is near Hailsham. In the earlier 1800s TRAVELLERS lived in tents a lot, caravans hadn’t come in yet. These entries for the families of Mark & Maria’s son George RIPLEY & family give the idea. Notice that their travelling wasn’t restricted to East Sussex, their circuit including Kent. Mark was born at Suddick/Sudgewick (probably Southwick) in Hampshire. I assume that these families will have strayed into Surrey also. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 30 Mar 1851 Census of England & Wales [ the RIPLEY & LEE families were neighbours on the night of the census ] // @ On the road, Sandhurst, Kent "These were in tents in the open air" George RIPLEY Head Marr 48? 40? Hawker b. not known Mary RIPLEY Wife Marr 48? 40? Hawker's Wife b. not known George RIPLEY Son Unm 20 Hawker's Son b. Seal, Kent Maria RIPLEY Dau Unm 18? 19? Hawker's Daughter b. not known Priscilla RIPLEY Dau Unm 16 Hawker's daughter b. Charing?, Kent Ruth RIPLEY Dau Unm 12 Hawker's Daughter b. Tenterden? or Rolvenden?, Kent Lettia? RIPLEY Dau Unm 10 b. Tenterden, Kent Sela? RIPLEY Dau Unm 08 b. not known Moses RIPLEY Son 04 b. Charing?, Kent William RIPLEY Son 4 months b. Sandhurst, Kent // @ On the road, Sandhurst, Kent "These were in tents in the open air" ????? LEE Head Marr 26 Tin Man b. Betehurure? Surrey Ellen LEE Wife Marr 20? 28? b. Ticehurst Sussex Frank LEE Son 09 b. Ticehurst, Sussex Isaac LEE Son 04 b. Woodchurch, kent Henry LEE Son 02 b. Woodchurch, Kent Families called LEE were another set of notable romany travellers. 07 Apr 1861 Census of England & Wales [ these two RIPLEY families were enumerated together ] // @ Staplehurst, Kent "Family had travelled during the night and arrived in District No.7 on the morning of the 8th but had not been spoken to concerning the census" George RIPLEY Head Wid 55 Hawker b. Sussex George RIPLEY Son Marr 29 Hawker b. N.K. Moses RIPLEY Son Unm 14 b. N.K. William RIPLEY Son 11 b. N.K. Letticia RIPLEY Dau Unm 19 b. N.K. Selina RIPLEY Dau Unm 16 b. N.K. Robert RIPLEY Son 09 b. N.K. James RIPLEY Grandson 07 b. N.K. George RIPLEY Grandson 03 b. N.K. Mary A. RIPLEY Granddaur 01 b. N.K. Thomas RIPLEY N.K. 12 b. N.K. William RIPLEY N.K. 10 b. N.K. Celia RIPLEY Son's Wife "Prob 28" b. N.K. // @ Staplehurst, Kent "Family slept in caravans on the night of the 7th at Staplehurst Plain" Henry RIPLEY Head Marr 36 Hawker b. Hailsham, Sussex Naomi RIPLEY Wife Marr 34 b. Hailsham, Sussex Henry RIPLEY Son 13 b. N.K. Caroline RIPLAY Dau 11 b. N.K. James RIPLEY Son 09 b. N.K. Phebe RIPLEY Dau 03 b. N.K. George RIPLEY Son 05 b. N.K. John RIPLEY Son 02 b. N.K. ------------------------------------------------------ James & Elizabeth WRIGHT had quite a few children baptised at Hailsham until they moved to Ore circa 1829/31 where their last child Amelia was baptised 1831. These travelling types usually had late baptisms, often by some years. Eliza WRIGHT’s 1828 baptism at Hailsham specifically states that she was born 01/01/1820. In an 1820 removal order applying to James and his family, Eliza is listed as 3 months old (they had been arrested at Hailsham for vagrancy (living rough on the common) and taken to the house of correction at Lewes. But a week later after a settlement examination came the order that made Hailsham take them back with Hailsham established as their parish of settlement). James and those of his siblings who survived long enough to make it into census enumerations all have estimated birth years some years before their baptism years. For example, James himself was born circa 1779/1781 but not baptised until 1788. He was baptised at Hailsham but could have been born anywhere given the travelling lifestyle. Despite the number of times these WRIGHT were baptised at Hailsham, it could be that that was merely where they liked to have issue baptised rather than being a long term place of residence. It is likely that Edward WRIGHT was baptised 1753 at Hailsham to Adam & Jane WRIGHT, travellers, but the maiden name of his wife Elizabeth is not certain. 28 Jul 1753 Baptism @ Hailsham parish Edward WRIGHT to Adam & Jane, Travellers [ East Sussex Baptismal Index 1700-1790, 1790-1812 : Society of Genealogists ] Unfortunately a number of trees at Ancestry have it that Edward & Elizabeth are a couple Edward WRIGHT & Elizabeth SWAN who married at Farnham in Surrey in 1767, with Edward buried at Farnham in 1824 and Elizabeth given as buried at Hailsham in 1836. I don’t think they are the right couple. The difficulty with this is that Edward buried at Farnham in 1824 was 83 making him born about 1741. Not only that, an Elizabeth WRIGHT buried at Farnham in 1823, born about 1741, is far more likely to be the wife of Edward buried 1824. Edward & Elizabeth at Farnham had at least 8 children baptised at Farnham from 1770 to 1784, and those of their children whose birthdates are given in their baptisms were born not long before baptism. Their list of children bears no relation to the list of children born all over East Sussex between 1771 and 1797 to an Edward & Elizabeth with Hailsham as their main hub. I do agree that the latter Elizabeth should be the one buried at Hailsham in 1836 (age 87). I find it difficult to believe that the parents of the family born at Farnham in Sussex county over a long period can also be the parents of the children born over a long period miles away in the completely different county of East Sussex. There is a really good marriage possibility in Sussex for Edward that researchers haven’t noticed. http://www.familysearch.org/ groom's name: Edward WRIGHT bride's name: Elizabeth WOOD marriage date: 12 Apr 1773 marriage place: Salehurst, Sussex, England indexing project (batch) number: M13533-5 Source film number: 1067298 Parish registers for Salehurst, 1575-188, Church of England. Quite a few trees at Ancestry have identified the parents of Edward baptised 1753 as Adam WRIGHT & Jane PRICE who married in 1850 at St James parish, Clerkenwell in London. I can’t 100% deny the possibility but it seems extremely unlikely to me. "Mar 5, Tuesday 1750 Adam WRIGHT, Widower, & Jane PRICE Spinster,both of the parish of St James Clerkenwell in ye County of Midlesex, were married by Licence. John DOUGHTY, Minister of St James Clerkenwell." When Adam WRIGHT married Jane PRICE the marriage bond described him as a widower with both being of the parish and Jane aged 20, so Jane was born about 1830. Jane’s mother Denney gave permission for Jane to marry seeing as she was still a minor. Investigation of the parish records gives us the family of Adam & Mary WRIGHT who had 8 or 9 children baptised at St James Clerkenwell between 1735 and 1845. After remarriage to Jane there were 13 more children between 1751 and 1772, all baptised at St James Clerkenwell. Adam appears to have been buried at St James Clerkenwell in 1779 aged 85, so he was born about 1714, i.e. he was about 16 years older than Jane. The 13 children baptised between 1751 and 1772 should all be Jane’s because the 1792 marriage information for her youngest daughter Sarah baptised 1772 tells us that her widower mother Jane gave permission for Sarah to marry because she was as till a minor at age 20. In 1772 Jane was about 42 which seems about right for coming to the end of bearing children. The above tells us that Adam probably stayed put at Clerkenwell seeing as his wives dropped their little bundles of joy to be baptised there in 1735, 1737, 1739, 1739, 1740, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1749, 1751, 1753 (Denney), 1754, 1755, 1758, 1760, 1762, 1763, 1765, 1769, 1770, 1771 and 1772. As I said, baptism did not long follow birth for those baptisms in which the birth dates are given. Daughter Denney was baptised at St James Clerkenwell parish in Middlesex April 1753 whereas Edward WRIGHT baptised Hailsham parish in Sussex was baptised July 1753. >From the above it seems very unlikely to me that Adam & Jane in Clerkenwell were travellers in East Sussex or that they fathered Edward baptised at Hailsham. Unfortunately there is a shortage of candidates to be Adam & Jane otherwise. An Adam fathered a son Samuel at Beckley Sussex in 1762, an Adam fathered a daughter Anne at Salehurst Sussex in 1769 and an Adam & Jane WRIGHT, “of Ireland,” were parents to a daughter Hannah at Ewhurst Sussex in 1771. The latter parents could well be Adam WRIGHT & Jane SOUTHERLAND who married at Salehurst in 1770. The occupation of Adam in Clerkenwell is given by the following. His son William WRIGHT was baptised at Clerkenwell in 1739 and son Adam Barnard WRIGHT was baptised 1740 at Clerkenwell. In June and July 1776 a number of newspapers carried articles relating to a bankruptcy of Adam and those two sons, this phrase being typical: “Adam Wright, William Wright, Adam Barnard Wright, of St. John's-street in the parish of St. James Clerkenwell in the county of Middlesex, Distillers, Dealers, and Chapmen, and late co-partners...” Getting back to the first problem I brought up, the origins of Joseph WARNER & his wife Elizabeth. Should I be looking for VOLLER not WARNER? Abraham VOLLER from Ore (aka “Jerry”) arrived 1842 at Nelson from Ore just like Richard WARNER & Eliza WRIGHT, on different ships. Both Richard & Abraham survived the so-called Wairau Massacre of 1843. Abraham was baptised 1804 at Widley Hampshire to John VOLLER & Elizabeth WARNER who married at Durley Hampshire in 1803. A sister Ann was born circa 1813. At marriage John was of Southwick Hampshire and Elizabeth was of Durley. The next two items below suggest that John VOLLER might have been from Titchfield Hampshire. Hampshire Record Office, Ref: 37M73/PO37/6 Title: Removal Order: John VOLLER, wife Elizabeth and son Abraham (4 years), removed from Durley. Date: 9 May 1809 “County of Southhampton To the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Durley in the said County and to the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Titchfield in the County aforesaid ------ Upon the complaint of the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Durley aforesaid in the County of Southhampton unto us whose names are hereunto affixed being two? of HM (His Majesty’s?) Justices of the Peace in and for the said County that: John Voller his wife Elizabeth and Abraham his son now aged four years have come to inhabit in the Parish of Durley not having gained a legal settlement there nor produced any certificate owning them or any of them to be settled elsewhere and that the said John Voller, Elizabeth his wife and Abraham their child are actually become chargeable to the Parish of Durley. We, the said Justices, upon our proof made thereof as well as upon the Examination of the said John Voller as otherwise and likewise upon our consideration had of the premises? do adjudge the same to be true and we do likewise adjudge that the lawful settlement of these John Voller, Elizabeth his wife and their son Abraham is in the Parish of Titchfield in the said County and so, therefore, require you the said Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Durley or some or one of you to convey the said John Voller Elizabeth his wife and Abraham their son from and out of the said Parish of Durley to the said Parish of Titchfield and them to deliver to the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor there or some or one of them together with this our order at the same time showing them the original and we do also hereby require you the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the Parish of Titchfield to receive and provide for them as inhabitants of your Parish. Given under our hands and seals, the ninth day of May in the forty ninth year of the reign of our sovereign Lord King George the Third." http://www.a2a.org.uk/ East Sussex Record Office PARISH OF WINCHELSEA Catalogue Ref. PAR511 Former Catalogue Ref. PAR511 Creator(s): Church of England, Winchelsea Parish, East Sussex Settlement - ref. PAR511/32 Removal orders from Winchelsea FILE - Removal order from Winchelsea - ref. PAR511/32/2/81 - date: 29 Nov 1825 [from Scope and Content] Abraham VOLLER (21) and his sister Ann VOLLER (12); to Titchfield in Hampshire. Abraham VOLLER was called Abraham WARNER when his three daughters were baptised at Ore. 01 Aug 1827 Marriage @ Ore, Sussex, England : Abraham VOLLER = Elizabeth JONES Elizabeth WARNER bap 07/10/1827 @ Ore, to Abraham & Elizabeth WARNER, Abraham a labourer Mary Ann WARNER bap 05/12/1830 @ Ore, to Abraham & Elizabeth WARNER, Abraham a labourer Jane WARNER bap 02/10/1834 @ Ore, to Abraham & Elizabeth WARNER, Abraham a labourer http://www.a2a.org.uk/ East Sussex Record Office PARISH OF HASTINGS ST CLEMENT Catalogue Ref. PAR367 , Former Catalogue Ref. PAR367 Creator(s): Church of England, Hastings St Clement Parish, East Sussex Overseers of the Poor: settlement - ref. PAR367/32 Removal orders to Hastings St Clement FILE - Removal order to Hastings St Clement and settlement examination - ref.PAR367/32/3/230 - date: 20 Dec 1838 [from Scope and Content] Abraham VOLLER (34), wife Elizabeth, and his children Elizabeth (11), Mary Ann (8) and Jane (3); from Hastings All Saints; fifteen years ago he agreed with William HICKES of Burdett Place, Hastings St Clement, to serve him as a driver to a fly and general servant; left due to ill health and lived with friends at Winchelsea for fifteen months and then went to sea; 11 years ago he was married at Ore to Elizabeth and they have three children FILE - Removal order to Hastings St Clement - ref. PAR367/32/3/231 - date: 20 Dec 1838 [from Scope and Content] Abraham VOLLER, wife Elizabeth, and his children Elizabeth (11), Mary Ann (8) and Jane (3); from Hastings All Saints In 1839 Abraham VOLLER served 2 months in prison for larceny although it is not quite what it seems. From a newspaper article about the case it seems that lodgers who went away had left a chest behind and eventually Abraham made use of items in it. They came back and Abraham found himself in trouble. Abraham said the lodgers had left owing money. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8942292 The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954), Monday 10 January 1876, Page 3. One of the oldest of the Nelson settlers, a man named Abraham VOLLER, was recently drowned. He arrived in the colony by the Thomas Parkes [sic - s/be Thomas Sparks] in 1842, and, except for a few months when he assisted to establish the first settlement of Wellington, VOLLER has resided in Nelson. He was one of the survivors of the historical Wairau massacre, and was one of the crew that helped Captain CARKEEK to sail a craft of 32 tons burden from England to Adelaide in the early days. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ Marlborough Express, Volume XXI, Issue 86, 18 April 1885, Page 2 LOCAL AND GENERAL NEWS. A Reminiscence. - A correspondent of the Colonist writes : - ln 1855, the good people of Nelson were in a high state of excitement regardng the war that was then raging between England and Russia, and every day we were expecting to receive a visit from a Russian warship. One fine morning the flagstaff at the signal station was covered with flags, which threw the Nelsonians into a great state of excitement, for they could not imagine what the display of bunting meant. On Pilot CROSS proceeding to the signal station, he found poor old Jerry VOLLER in a high state of excitement, which had been greatly increased by the strength of the famous Nelson brewed malt liquors. On inquiring what was up, Jerry replied - " It's all up with us, the Russians have come." Shortly after the Provincial Council met, and as often customary in those days, they were seized with a fit of retrenchment, but the only saving effected was to take sixpence a day off Jerry's salary. I do not know whether his method of announcing the supposed visit of the Russians had anything to do with making the Councillors dock poor Jerry's screw. However, he was the only victim on that occasion. - Old Resident. Now, when Richard WARNER’s wife Eliza died at Nelson far too early in 1865, it is said in a story passed down that his two youngest surviving children, Abraham WARNER and Martha WARNER, were raised out of the family. I discovered that Martha was adopted by people called JERVIS at Richmond and married Arthur Herbert O’LOUGHLIN. Abraham when he married said his mother was Mary DOUGLAS, and when he died the informant at the death said his mother was Mary DOUGLAS, yet his biological mother was definitely Eliza WRIGHT. It is highly likely that Mary DOUGLAS was in fact Mary Ann VOLLER, the daughter of Abraham VOLLER, who had quite a few issue to Hugh DOUGLAS. When Joseph WARNER’s wife Elizabeth died at Ore in 1851, the informant at the death was Sarah Ann VOLLER. I am confident that the latter is the wife of Elizabeth’s son Robert baptised as Robert WARNER in 1822. It appears that the latter, as Robert VOLLER, married Sarah Ann FOORD at Ore in 1843. At the 1851 census they are WARNER. Robert WARNER, by the way, applied for a free passage to NZ but never arrived. 20 Mar 1842 List of Applicants for Free Passage to New Zealand Reg # 5445 WARNER, Robert Single age 19 Brickmaker Residence: Fairlight, Oare Parish. No record of him in NZ. Here's why: State Library of Victoria Register of Emigrant Labourers applying for Free Passage to NZ; Reel 1480, Piece 272, 273 5th [April 1842?] Rt WARNER, Fairlight, Oare - Hastings. Your application for a free passage to N.Z. has been received, but as you are a single man, I have to regret that it cannot be approved. H.F? ALSTON, Sup't of Emig'n. Eliza WRIGHT, married to Richard WARNER, had a brother William who in 1842 was transported to Van Dieman’s Land for 14 years having been tried at the Lewes assizes. He copped two sentences of 7 years each to be served consecutively. William’s own words in convict documentation at Tasmania Archives say that he was tried for stealing some trousers and “for stealing my sister’s watch.” His description of his family back home matches that of the WRIGHT family at Ore. He said he was born at Elsham near Lewes. There is no such place in Sussex, so it was probably how William said Hailsham, dropping the ‘h.’ The same thing happened with his sister Elizabeth Hannah’s emigration record to NSW (married Henry HEAD. She was a witness to Eliza’s 1841 marriage) in which Elizabeth’s birthplace is given as Elsham. These WRIGHT couldn’t read or write, so would not have realised the confusion. The confusion over Elsham is such that a clerk in one of William’s convict records in Tasmania wrote it down as Elsham nr Leeds. There certainly is one up north and the clerk must have known of it, but we have the other record of Elsham near Lewes and the trial was at Lewes. Now, the law at that time would have regarded the sister’s watch as belonging to her husband, assuming she was married. So in any trial regarding the theft, the theft would have been regarded as being from the husband. The watch was in fact Eliza’s watch. Newspaper reports about the trial refer to husband Richard, technically the owner of the watch, as Richard VOLLER, not Richard WARNER. Monday 20 December 1841 , Sussex Advertiser , East Sussex, England Prisoners committed to the Lewes House of Correction since our last for trial at the Assizes.... ..... Wm. WRIGHT, by F. North, Esq., charged with stealing on the 9th Dec. inst, at Ore, one silver watch value 30s, the property of Richard VOLLER. Monday 10 January 1842 , Sussex Advertiser , East Sussex, England EAST SUSSEX SESSIONS. ..... TUESDAY. [Before Mr Serjeant D'Oylv.] William WRIGHT, seaman, 22, was indicted for stealing at Ore, on the 9th December, one silver watch, value 30s, the goods and chattels of Richard VOLLER . -Fourteen years' transportation. By the way, William WRIGHT suffered various punishments in Tasmania such as extensions to his sentence, whippings and solitary for various indiscretions. eg for absconding a first time he received 75 lashes and for absconding a second time he received 100 lashes. Having govt soap in his possession cost him 10 days solitary. He had a few tatts: “Remarks: large [Tree? True?] Man with Axe, man with Gun? and bog? on right arm, Bust of a man?, Mermaid, man, Crucifixion, Heart and ????? J.R.E.R. on left arm, 2 scars on left hand.” He was conditionally pardoned 19 Feb 1852 and the last I can find of him is on the ship Ladybird Launceston to Melbourne departing 28 Mar 1854. Abraham VOLLER was definitely in thick with the WARNER’s back in Ore in Sussex given the second of the following two items. Archives NZ - REPRO 6, Nelson papers NZC 234/2. Also, State Library of Victoria Register of Emigrant Labourers applying for Free Passage to New Zealand; Reel 1480, Piece 272, 273 and in CO208, Reel 2569 Piece 275 which is the Index to 272 and 273. Register of Emigrant Labourers applying for Free Passage to New Zealand [See Regulations for the Selection of Emigrant Labourers] 32 Mar 1842 Application made to M.GILLINGHAM 5379 EARLE Richard & Filly, 32 & 30 yrs, brickmaker, residence Oare near Hastinmgs, 2 sons age 12, 10 and 1 daughter age 3. 5380 WARNER Rich'd & Eliza, both 23 yrs, quarryman & blacksmith, residence Oare, near Hastings, one son aged 1 year, embarkation #2443. 5381 VOLLER, Abraham & Eliz'th, 32 & 31 yrs, Ag. Lab'r & Bricklayer & Quarryman, 3 daughters age 13, 12, 7. Embarkation #2563. State Library of Victoria Register of Emigrant Labourers applying for Free Passage; Reel 1480, Piece 272, 273 5th [May 1842] Abraham VOLLER, Oare near Hastings The "Thomas Harrison" is now quite full. I regret therefore that it will not be possible for you to share a passage with R. WARNER. H. F. ALSTON, Sup't of Em'n. Richard WARNER ended up going to Nelson on the ship OLYMPUS, not the THOMAS HARRISON. I suppose R. WARNER could have meant Robert WARNER who didn’t actually travel. The long winded notes above show that these WARNER were often known as VOLLER. Did that apply to Joseph & Elizabeth WARNER in the 1851 census? I still can’t find them as VOLLER or similar though. Another question I’ve asked myself is, can John VOLLER & Elizabeth WARNER, the parents of Abraham VOLLER, be one and the same couple as Joseph & Elizabeth WARNER the parents of Richard & Robert? i.e. was Abraham a brother to Richard & Robert? I have no idea how I might prove or disprove that. Elizabeth the relict of Joseph WARNER died 1851 age 73 and was buried age 75, and she was 60 in 1841 (actual age probably rounded down to 60). She had Richard baptised in 1819 and Robert baptised in 1822, the latter when she was aged about 44/46, so surely there were earlier issue? Born about 1776/78, she could easily have been marrying John VOLLER in 1803 in terms of her age. All sheer speculation though. Obviously there is no difficulty reconciling WARNER and VOLLER given the way the others swapped between those names, but Joseph versus John is a tougher ask, and maybe it is too desperate a solution as to the origin of Joseph WARNER and just wishful thinking on my part. Peter The List Guidelines http://new-zealand-l.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message