Lorraine,
Reading your email makes me now wonder if I my theory about Thomas was a bit too simple...
I had concluded there were just 2 possible Thomases - one, with the long history of petty crime, culminating in the Bathurst imprisonment as Thomas Hynes (nee Nestor) in 1893 and the other, a Thomas Nestor (of who I'm not sure whether he had a criminal history or not), who died aged 24 of TB in Sydney Hospital in December 1888. On his Death Certificate (handwritten), it states he was a labourer, in hospital with phthisis for 1 month and 24 days, but (unfortunately) parents' names and occupations 'not stated'.
Incidentally, JM has already cautioned me about this problem of insufficient Death Certificate data!
On Trove, there is a Funeral Notice on 1 September 1885, in the SMH, indicating 'The friends of Messrs Thomas and Edward and John Nestor are respectfully invited to attend the Funeral of their beloved father, the late Mr Thomas Nestor...etc' The deceased wife's name isn't mentioned but I assumed the younger Thomas mentioned there might be a good 'starter' for Julia's spouse (because the father was 'Thomas'). I recall seeing (I think on Ancestry) that John and Edward were also in trouble with the Law (did it run in the family!)....
However, whether it was the first one who died young in 1888 or the second one, the petty criminal who temporarily 'disappeared' after 1893, it makes sense that, for whatever reason, Julia headed off to Broken Hill to have her first child, James in 1888.
I can see that you prefer the first Thomas as her spouse (who died 1888)....I agree he may be a more plausible candidate than Thomas Hynes nee Nestor ...in fact, they both could well have been petty criminals (the criminal 'career' of the first Thomas ending in 1887 because he died soon after).
The only issue that still bothers me is the point that Debra (Dundee) made on this thread back in May and that is that there might have been only one Thomas Nestor who was a petty criminal and her suggestion was that the reason the charges stopped unexpectedly in 1888 was because, from that from that time on, he had assumed the alias 'Hynes'. What do you think?
Paul