Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another question about bigamy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another question about bigamy

    I have a case in which my gggg grandparents (Ruth and James) both remarried while the other was still alive. Ruth had 5 children, the first three by James and the other two by the second husband. I have no actual evidence that Ruth married the second partner, only her sayso - no certificate or witness to the marriage was produced.The court case seems to be about which of the five children should be supported by each husband (or which parish as Ruth is a pauper). James’ second marriage is to a Mary Ann Baldwin and is proven in court. Ruth is accused of fornication and her two younger children declared illegitimate. Nothing is said about James’ second marriage. Neither are either of the marriages declared void on this occasion. This case was in 1829. However, by 1832, Mary Ann Baldwin has gone back to using her maiden name.

    I have read that bigamy wasn’t actually considered a crime until 1861 but even so, wouldn’t there have to be some sort of official document to declare the marriages void. If so, any ideas where to look for it?
    CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

  • #2
    Carole

    Where and when was the court case?
    ~ with love from Little Nell~
    Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi

      1829 Streatham - it's a case of Streatham vs Bishop's Hull (near Taunton) and involves removal of the poor
      CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

      Comment


      • #4
        I was under the impression that bigamy was always a crime? Certainly as far as church courts were concerned. I don't know when it became a civil offence.

        However.....if Ruth did not remarry (and this seems quite likely because she is being accused of fornication, not bigamy), then her children are illegitimate anyway.

        A bigamous marriage is not a marriage of any sort, and does not therefore need to be declared void - it didn't happen.

        Things are different nowadays and a proven bigamous marriage would need to be legally declared void to keep the paperwork straight!

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi OC

          As you've probably gathered, this is connected to my post a few days ago about non-conformists and bigamy. I'm not familiar with researching either situation and just my luck to get both thrown in for the price of one. What is really throwing me is why nothing was said about James fornicating or being bigamous

          The court case is many pages long . I've just received the overseers report subsequent to the case in which he complains about the outcome being a foregone conclusion in that Streatham (the Appellant) refused to hear a lot of Ruth's evidence in order to favour themselves. James by then was established in Streatham. Maybe this has something to do with it.
          CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

          Comment


          • #6
            Probably Ruth was considered guilty because her younger children weren't James', and they weren't bothered about James' other partner because she wasn't trying to get support from the parish.

            This was a case about who was responsible for supporting Ruth and her children - the argument about whether or not she had committed bigamy wasn't relevant. The parishes concerned would both be trying to avoid having to pay her.
            ~ with love from Little Nell~
            Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Little Nell

              Yes, that's what I was thinking and why I was wondering whether or not there would be some sort of record elsewhere making it official but I think OC has answered. Thanks

              Carole
              CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

              Comment


              • #8
                The court case would have cleared up who was going to pay for Ruth and children, which is all it was interested in. As she was accused of "fornication" its quite clear they didn't believe she had gone through any other marriage ceremony, whatever she might have pretended. If they believed she had a second husband they would have tried getting him to pay for the non-James children, I imagine.
                ~ with love from Little Nell~
                Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                Comment


                • #9
                  They did Little Nell.

                  He (Jacob Player) was called to testify and this is what the case reports:

                  "I have lived with Ruth Hayne as her husband for about 4 years during the whole of that time I have never left her except within the last 10 months subsequent to the birth of the youngest child. During the same period I have never seen James Hayne in Bishop's Hull".
                  On cross examintaion he stated :
                  "I have no objection to keep the younger children".

                  Interesting that Ruth is consistently referred to in the report as Ruth Hayne. He kept his word and was still with Ruth on the 1841 census, where she is Ruth Player. Jacob died around 1848 from memory and after that she has reverted back to Haynes
                  CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So they lived as man and wife but there's no evidence they went through a marriage ceremony?
                    ~ with love from Little Nell~
                    Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hmmm. The notion of being married to someone and living with them as wife/husband seems a bit unlcear in this case

                      Here's what Ruth says " I have lived in Bishop's Hull from my birth with the exception of the time of my removal with my husband (she means James) and family to Tiverton and the two periods of my being removed on his desertion of me to St Thomas' ...(she means St Thomas Exeter, James home parish)... about 12 years ago and my late removal with my children to Streatham... (this is where James had establshed himself after his desertion of Ruth)... With these three exceptions I have always lived in Bishop's Hull. I had three children when James Hayne my husband deserted me about 12 years ago. About 4 years ago I married James Player and have lived with him as his wife until my removal to Streatham. I have now five children, the youngest aged about two years".

                      I haven't as yet found a marriage for James and Ruth either - to be honest I haven't searched the Bishop's Hull's parish registers yet. There are some online but stop just a couple of years before what I can suppose to be the marriage year. This will be the next lot of fiche I invest in. The only other proof I have is the baptism entry (non-conformist!) from Bishop's Hull Indepndant for their daughter which says "daughter of James and Ruth Hine" .

                      Edit 'Jacob' not 'James' Player
                      Last edited by taffyfrog; 23-01-08, 21:21.
                      CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Another aspect of this is that (I believe) that a child born into a marriage is or was legally assumed to be the child of the husband until proved otherwise ............ If she was still married to her husband, even though she wasn't living with him, legally they were his until the court case.



                        The management does not accept responsibility for any sensible comments that may accidentally appear in this posting. Occurrences are incidental and not based upon actual intelligence .......

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mandy

                          This seems to be the case reading the documents in which they start the case by talking about Ruth and James Hayne and THEIR five children but by the end of the case it's been whittled down to their three children.. The other two being taken care of by Jacob.
                          CAROLE : "A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK"

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X