1841 Census Lookup Please - PAYNE/PAIN

[robweldon]

Hi

I have just found out that my convict ancestor was married with kids when he was transported to Australia. ( His sentencing was published in the Ipswich Journal on the 9th April 1836. )
His name is Samuel PAYNE ( PAIN ) and his wife's name is Hannah.

I wonder if some kind person could look for Hannah and her 4 children on the 1841 census please.  Hopefully there may be some indication on that census as to the whereabouts of her missing husband, which would prove that this is the correct family.

thank you very much
Robert

[suffolk*sue]

Does the newspaper report give any more clues as to where the Paynes came from and also does it give Samuels age?

I can only see one Hannah on her own with four children and that is in Kelsale. The youngest child in 1841 is down as 2yrs old, so don't think they can be the right ones.

 

[robweldon]

Hi suffolk suepip

Samuel Payne was born between 1807 and 1811, and he was a butcher at Kelsale at the time of his misdemeanour.
He claimed to have four children in 1837, so maybe the 2yo is actually a couple of years older.

I guess that this family could be the correct one. Please let me know what you think.
thanks, Rob

[suffolk*sue]

1841

HO 107/1025/12  -  Kelsale
Folio 29, Page 17
Street

PAYNE
Hannah - 31 - widow(crossed out)
John - 10
George - 8
Hannah - 6
Charles - 2


I think its too much of a coincidence for it not to be the right family, don't you.




I can't seem to find any of them in 1851. 

 

[suffolk*sue]

As luck would have it, there is a baptism for one of the children on the IGI

Hannah Payne bap. 6th July, 1834, the daughter of Samuel Paine and Hannah Paine at Kelsale.


----------------------

I found the following marriage on Boyds index, which could be the couple.


Sam PAIN
Han PAIN

1828  -  Flempton cum Hengrave

[robweldon]

Thanks very much for the census details.  I think you have found the right one for me, especially with the widow bit being crossed out.  The baptism date for Hannah on the IGI certainly fits in as well.
Funny how they are not on the 1851 census, but I hope they didn't travel to Australia because Samuel married again in 1849.
Not sure about the Boyd's Index entry, but thanks again for everything.
Rob