South Australian Marriage HALLS DRYSTER 1883

[mabeljessie]

It can be very very tricky with bigamy some families still get quite upset by the whole thing.

My own family still wont accept that our upstanding family has a great grandfather who left his wife in Poplar, he was a seaman and met our great grandmother on a sea voyage and jumped ship to marry her in Australia. It is not allowed to be written about or discussed. If you add it to the tree or mention it to others - bang you are cut out of any further dealings.

[cando]

My goodness don't some people have an ignorant attitude to family research .  Perhaps you should use one of my frequent phrases....don't do your family history if you aren't prepared for some unpleasantness along the way.  

I gave lots of info about a second marriage of one of my female ancestors - the 2nd husband committed suicide. It was well covered in the press of the day but the person seeking information would not accept it and yes you've guessed it, she was a descendant. 

I'd be putting an accurate public tree online with an untraceable username. 

I'll have a look at my other resources for you.

Cando

[cando]

I am not 100% sure if it is the woman I am looking at without going back through but gut feeling looks like it.
I am helping a friend of a friend in the UK so want him to look at all the data first.

Are you researching Mary Alice DYSTER or Walter Edward HALLS?

Cando

[mabeljessie]

Researching Walter Halls.

Oh the joys of the past. I love the gritty family secrets and boy have we got a lot. But some still want to find the heroes and heroines and not those who did anything wrong at all.

I love to think how families have had to master all sorts of difficulties to get to where they are today. It was a different world, people had to live on their wits and like the great animal kingdom adapt to survive. Rules and laws were a shifting platform, once the authorities turned a blind eye to bigamy as it served their purpose to let the convicts marry here to populate the new land. They hoped the married couple would stay in the new country and continue on.

[cando]

Looks promising

http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl
Births Dec 1857   
HALLS Walter Edward         Thingoe    4a/402

Cando

[majm]

Bigamy

I am quite certain that when a convict married in any of the colonies, that it was not breaching English bigamy laws.   I am quite certain that the English marriage had effectively ended with the carrying out of the sentence "seven years transportation beyond the seas"

There are many threads at RChat re this subject.  I have contributed to several.

You may be interested in the following article from 1810
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/627938 Sydney Gazette 3 March 1810

And this from one of the RChat threads
 

Certainly convicts were allowed to remarry if they'd been 'out of/away from the marriage' for more than seven years - but I don't think this was considered bigamy - the more so as they had very little hope of ever returning to England.   
Their partners in England could also remarry if their convicted OH's had been gone for more than 7 years  . . .  so, not just occurring in Australia.  The marriage was considered void is my understanding, so not bigamy.

No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Wiggy

You are correct Wiggy
The law "An Act to restrain all Persons from Marriage until their former Wives and former Husbands be dead" was introduced in 1604.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1604.htm

Section 2 of this 'bigamy' act allowed partners to remarry if the other was overseas for at least 7 years or if they had no knowledge of their partner being alive for 7 years.
The wording of section II puts it like this :

"II. Provided always, That this Act, nor any Thing therein contained, shall extend to any Person or Persons whose Husband or Wife shall be continually remaining beyond the Seas by the Space of seven Years together, or whose Husband or Wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the Space of seven Years together, in any Parts within his Majesty’s Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that Time. "

Cheers
Guy

Fingers crossed this will help you to re-open some communication lines.


JM

[cando]

You are correct JM however I think bigamy was viewed a little differently in 1910 .

I haven't time to type up the census returns...but Walter Edward HALLS had a father James, which matches with the SA marriage reg, and mother Sarah Ann on the census.

There are a number of public trees on Ancestry also including some photographs.

Cando

[Merryman]

Walter Edward Halls father's name is correct i.e. James.  Mother's name Sarah Ann(e) .   Her surname changed on official documents to Hearn(e).     The Birth Index information for Walter would appear to be correct  .   I have lots of information on this family from 1797.       I noticed one posting said that Walter Edward Halls was a widower when he married Mary Alice Dyster . I will look into this further.

[mabeljessie]

Thank you Merryman,
I can't look at my details until this evening.
But so pleased to find someone with family information.
Cheers