Connection or coincidence?

[liverpoolgenealogy]

Could anyone help me decipher whether these families are connected, or there just happens to be a coincidence that they share some similarities?

My 4x great grandfather was William Finn, born in Ireland in the early 1820s.

He married Ann Logan on 18 May 1845 in Liverpool, and the information is recorded as:
William Finn, 22 yr, bachelor, labourer, Arley St, Michael Finn, Tailor
Ann Logan, 25 yr, spinster, -, Arley St, Daniel Logan, labourer.

The church records give William's mother's name as Mary.

The census records state William's birthplace as Ireland in 1851, 1861, and 1881, but in 1871, gives Carlow, Ireland. His wife was born in Liverpool. William died in 1887.

In 1853, Ann's sister, Catherine Logan, married a John Finn, son of Michael and Mary. In 1851, the census lists a John Finn, aged 28, born Ireland, living with Ann Finn, aged 81, his grandmother, in Arley Street. If this record is correct, Ann would also be William's grandmother (my 6x great grandmother).

Ann died the following January. Catherine died in 1879. John appears on the 1881 census, in Arley St, aged 57, born CARLOW, IRELAND.

The 1841 census shows a Michael Finn, aged 55, tailor and Mary living together in Liverpool, both born in Ireland. I haven't found an entry for William Finn on the 1841 census. Michael, aged 55 years gives a birth date of c. 1786, which means it's possible for Ann to have been his mother, having been born c. 1770, though I think she was probably older than this.

The year previous, a Mary Finn married George Cassidy, with father Michael, a tailor.
George Cassidy, minor, bachelor, stonemason, Oriel Street, James Cassidy, stonemason
Mary Finn, minor, spinster, -, Oriel Street, Michael Finn, tailor.

In 1861, Mary Cassidy appears with her family on the census, including her father Michael Finn, now a widower. The census gives their birth place as DUBLIN, which is different from CARLOW, given as William's birthplace. This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't the same family, as people can move around.

The 1851 census for Mary Cassidy lists a brother, JOHN FINN, aged 28, a hawker, born DUBLIN. Could John have been recorded twice? There are other instances of this in my tree, albeit rare, as there are instances that people haven't been recorded at all. The birth place is also different to a definitive record of John from 1881, which states CARLOW. Perhaps in 1881 he gave his place of last residence in Ireland, as opposed to birth place? That feels like a bit of a stretch, though.

The 1861 census for Mary Cassidy lists another brother, JAMES FINN, aged 48.

There are some potential connections here, but I'm not sure if they are related, or just happen to share some similarities to another Finn family.

Any insight is much appreciated, thank you.

[CaroleW]

Do you mean the church records give William’s mother as Mary - you say Michael

[amondg]

1861 census John Finn and his wife Catherine and daughters Mary, Alice and Margaret.

Living with them is a niece Catherine Finn age 11 this would fit with William's daughter born 1850

who is not listed with her parents that year

[amondg]

In 1851 Mary Cassidy lists John Finn as a Visitor not a brother, although it is often the case they are related in some way he could be a cousin.

1861 James is listed as a brother.

[liverpoolgenealogy]

Do you mean the church records give William’s mother as Mary - you say Michael

Thanks for pointing that out, yes you are correct! 

[liverpoolgenealogy]

1861 census John Finn and his wife Catherine and daughters Mary, Alice and Margaret.

Living with them is a niece Catherine Finn age 11 this would fit with William's daughter born 1850

who is not listed with her parents that year

Thank you Amon . I'm relatively certain that the John Finn that married Catherine Logan was William Finn's brother. I think it's just too much of a coincidence for William's sister-in-law to marry a man who has the same last name and is also from Carlow. 

[liverpoolgenealogy]

In 1851 Mary Cassidy lists John Finn as a Visitor not a brother, although it is often the case they are related in some way he could be a cousin.

1861 James is listed as a brother.

Thank you for pointing this out! Certainly it seems John was a relative, but in my notes I had written 'brother', I was probably very tired at the time! Perhaps this opens more possibilities up?