Is this the Mary Ann Kerr
SAUNDERS formerly
JONES nee
KERR on the 1909 electoral roll and possibly the mother named on a birth registration of a Wm M
KERR in 1892 and a
Clifford JONESin Broken Hill in 1896?
Australian Electoral Roll
Western Australia
1906
SAUNDERS Mary Ann Varden Street, Kalgoorlie HD
SAUNDERS William Varden Street, Kalgoorlie Labourer
1909
SAUNDERS Mary Ann Kerr 106 Victoria Road, East Fremantle HD
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article82946047The Daily News 31 May 1904
RETURNS TO PERTH, HUSBAND SEEKS DIVORCEAt the Supreme Court this morning, Mr. Justice Parker heard tho petition for divorce of David Russell Jones from his wife Mary Anne Jones. William Saunders was named as co-respondent. Mr. C. R. Penny appeared for tho petitioner, and neither the respondent nor co respondent appeared, Petitioner said he was a mill hand. He was married at Toowoomba, Queensland, in 1886, and lived with his wife at Chinchilla, Cairns, and other places in Queensland.
In 1890 they came to Western Australia, and after eleven months, went to Adelaide. Afterwards he left for Broken Hill to look for work, leaving his wife with some money in Adelaide. When he returned be was told she had gone to Broken Hill, so he went after her and found her engaged in a hotel at Broken Hill. She refused to leave with him, From 1892 to 1895 he was ill and his funds were exhausted, In 1895 he saw the co-respondent at Broken Hill, and asked him if he knew he was living with witness's wife. He answered, 'Is your name Jones?' and did not deny the allegation. Afterwards he was walking past the house, and he saw the co-respondent at breakfast, and the respondent waiting on him. Respondent ran into another room, and then co-respondent followed her and came out with a revolver, saying, 'Run, you skunk, or I'll shoot you.' Witness informed the police, He had not seen his wife since then, until last October. He had advertised for her. He tried the Salvation Army, but they failed to find her for him, He met her in Wellington Street in October, 1903, The co-respondent, Saunders, was there, She was speaking to a friend of his, who did not know her as anything but Mrs Saunders. He had never enough money to prosecute the case against his wife until just lately. He had not cohabited with his wife since they left Perth in 1891. His Honor adjourned the case until to-morrow, to enable evidence of the fact that the respondent and co respondent were now living together to be called.
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article25089758The West Australian 1 Jun 1904
Jones v. Jones and Saunders.
David Russell Jones sued for a dissolution of his marriage with
Mary Anna Jones, formerly Kerr. on the ground of misconduct with William Saunders, who was joined as co-respondent. Mr. Penny appeared for the petitioner. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent or the co-respondent. The facts alleged were that the parties were married at Toowoomba, Queensland, on July 28, 1886, and lived together in that State for two and a half years. They then came to Western Australia, and resided for a time at Lion Mill. Subsequently they went to Adelaide, and the petitioner left the respondent there while he went to Broken Hill to seek for employment. On his returning to Adelaide some time later he learned that respondent had left and had taken a situation in a hotel at Broken Hill. He followed her there, but she refused to live with him. He after wards found that the respondent gave birth to a child in July, 1892 of which the co-respondent was the father. He also discovered that the respondent and the co-respondent were cohabiting at Broken Hill and went to the house where they were. He asked Saunders if he knew the respondent was his wife and Saunders replied by asking, "Is your name Jones?" Some words followed, and Saunders threatened him with a revolver. From that time he lost sight of them until he saw the respondent in Perth in November last and found she was still living with Saunders. The reason he had not instituted proceedings before was that he had suffered from lead poisoning in 1892, and had not had the means since then until quite recently to take action. His Honour said the evidence given by the petitioner being uncontradicted, was almost enough to satisfy him. He would like, however, to hear the evidence of someone who could testify to the fact that the respondent and co-respondent had been actually living as man and wife. The case was accordingly adjourned to the next morning, in order that the person who had served the citation notices upon the respondent and co-respondent might be called.
Continued....
