kiterunner
14-09-23, 15:10
Emily Robinson was born in 1867 in West Horsley, Surrey, daughter of James, a farm labourer, and Rose Anne / Rosina.
This is the family in 1871, in West Horsley:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7619/images/SRYRG10_809_812-0318?pId=13354969
And in 1881, still in West Horsley:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7572/images/SRYRG11_775_778-0222?pId=21351700
In 1891 the parents are still in West Horsley but none of their children are with them:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/6598/images/SRYRG12_556_558-0552?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=UMN103669&_phstart=successSource&pId=18113517
On the 31st Jul 1892, Emily married Hugh Lawrance Bristow at St Andrew, Haverstock Hill, London, giving her age as 25, a spinster, daughter of James Robinson, a farmer, witnesses her siblings Arthur James Robinson and Bertha Robinson.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1623/images/31280_198101-00105?pId=3541716
Her address is given as 20 Piercefield Street, but she is not there on the 1891 census.
Newspaper story:
30 Dec 1905
Surrey Times
A WIFE DISCLAIMED
At the County Bench at Woking, on Saturday, Hugh Lawrence Bristow, of Croydon, was summoned for neglecting to maintain his wife and four children, whereby they became chargeable to the Guildford Union on December 9th. Defendant said the woman was not his wife, although he had been through the marriage ceremony with her. He was at present out of work and could not support the family.
Mr J Martin, the relieving officer, said defendant's wife and four children became chargeable to the common fund on December 9th. This made the fourth time the woman had been relieved and she was allowed 6s. a week in out-relief.
Defendant produced two certificates, one showing that a person, whom he alleged to be the woman with whom he went through the ceremony was married to another man in 1889. His own marriage certificate showed that the second ceremony took place in 1892.
Col. Phayre said the Bench could not accept the certificates as evidence that the woman's former husband was alive when she married defendant.
Defendant admitted that the four children were his, and the Bench adjourned the case for 21 days to give him the opportunity of supporting the children.
Can anyone find the supposed first marriage, or find Emily on the 1891 census, please? In 1901 she is with her parents and her children are all Hugh's, none from before their marriage:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7814/images/SRYRG13_598_601-0539?pId=4568935
(Hugh is in Leatherhead as "Hugh L Rustan")
This is the family in 1871, in West Horsley:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7619/images/SRYRG10_809_812-0318?pId=13354969
And in 1881, still in West Horsley:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7572/images/SRYRG11_775_778-0222?pId=21351700
In 1891 the parents are still in West Horsley but none of their children are with them:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/6598/images/SRYRG12_556_558-0552?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=UMN103669&_phstart=successSource&pId=18113517
On the 31st Jul 1892, Emily married Hugh Lawrance Bristow at St Andrew, Haverstock Hill, London, giving her age as 25, a spinster, daughter of James Robinson, a farmer, witnesses her siblings Arthur James Robinson and Bertha Robinson.
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/1623/images/31280_198101-00105?pId=3541716
Her address is given as 20 Piercefield Street, but she is not there on the 1891 census.
Newspaper story:
30 Dec 1905
Surrey Times
A WIFE DISCLAIMED
At the County Bench at Woking, on Saturday, Hugh Lawrence Bristow, of Croydon, was summoned for neglecting to maintain his wife and four children, whereby they became chargeable to the Guildford Union on December 9th. Defendant said the woman was not his wife, although he had been through the marriage ceremony with her. He was at present out of work and could not support the family.
Mr J Martin, the relieving officer, said defendant's wife and four children became chargeable to the common fund on December 9th. This made the fourth time the woman had been relieved and she was allowed 6s. a week in out-relief.
Defendant produced two certificates, one showing that a person, whom he alleged to be the woman with whom he went through the ceremony was married to another man in 1889. His own marriage certificate showed that the second ceremony took place in 1892.
Col. Phayre said the Bench could not accept the certificates as evidence that the woman's former husband was alive when she married defendant.
Defendant admitted that the four children were his, and the Bench adjourned the case for 21 days to give him the opportunity of supporting the children.
Can anyone find the supposed first marriage, or find Emily on the 1891 census, please? In 1901 she is with her parents and her children are all Hugh's, none from before their marriage:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7814/images/SRYRG13_598_601-0539?pId=4568935
(Hugh is in Leatherhead as "Hugh L Rustan")