Warning
Some of these pages contain information about deceased individuals of Aboriginal decent.
arrow arrow
Jury Cramp [234]
(1778-1849)
Mary Anne Edmonds [3946]
(1802-After 1851)
Thomas Francis [18129]
(1801-1853)
Catherine Berrell [18130]
(Abt 1822-1859)
Josiah Cramp [776]
(1826-1893)
Naomi Francis [5190]
(1838-1896)
Josiah Cramp [5194]
(1858-1937)

 

Family Links

Spouses/Children:
1. Mary Jane Mathews [18148]

2. Rosalind Lucy Purss [18151]

Josiah Cramp [5194]

  • Born: 1858 Apr 19, Abercrombie, Georgiana County, New South Wales, Australia 1
  • Marriage (1): Mary Jane Mathews [18148] on 1883 Dec 27 in Georgetown, Queensland 1
  • Marriage (2): Rosalind Lucy Purss [18151] on 1905 Dec 16 in Ingham, , Queensland 1
  • Died: 1937 Feb 16, Townsville, , Queensland, Australia at age 78 1
  • Buried: 1937 Feb 16, Townsville, , Queensland, Australia

bullet   Other names for Josiah were Joseph Edward Edmonds and Josiah Edmonds.

bullet   FamilySearch ID: KZQ9-CT8.

picture

bullet  Noted events in his life were:

• Registration: Birth, 1858, Carcoar District, New South Wales. 2 6260/1858
CRAMP, JOSIAH
JOSIAH
NAOMI
CARCOAR

• Registration: Death, 1937, Queensland, Australia. 3 1937/C1153
Joseph Edward Edmonds
Joseph
-

• Newspaper: Death Notice, 1937 Feb 18, Townsville, , Queensland, Australia. 4 PERSONAL. (1937, February 18). Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1885 - 1954), p. 6. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article62793860>
The death occurred on Monday of a well-known Northern pioneer, Mr. Joseph Edward Edmonds, at the age of 78 years. The deceased was born In Goulburn, New South Wales, and at the age of eight years, he travelled North with hie father to the Gilbert River district, where they selected country. In later years, with his brother, Mr. Edmonds stocked several properties In that area. For very many years he was engaged In drov-ing and cattle dealing, and 12 years ago be came to Townsvllle, where he took up residence at Aitkenvale.

• Newspaper: Funeral Notice, 1937 Feb 16, Townsville, , Queensland, Australia. 5 Family Notices. (1937, February 16). Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1885 - 1954), p. 4. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article62787931>
FUNERAL NOTICE. THE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES of Mr. and Mrs. W. Fraser and Family (Mackay), Mr. C. Edmonds, Mr. and Mrs. R. Mercer and Family (Mt. Fox), Mr. and Mrs. J. Killoran (Warwick), and Mrs. and Mrs. T. Ed- monds and Family (Charleville) are respectfully invited to attend the FUNERAL of their late beloved Father, Grandfather and Great Grandfather, JOSEPH EDWARD EDMONDS, which will move from the Central Presbyterian Church, THIS (Tuesday) MORNING, at 10 o'clock. (New Cemetery.) F. HEATLET & SONS (PTT.) LTD. Undertakers. 'Phones: Day 1330: Night 771.


picture

Josiah married Mary Jane Mathews [18148] [MRIN: 7312], daughter of Ricahrd Marrrans Mathews [36034] and Sarah Jane [36035], on 1883 Dec 27 in Georgetown, Queensland.1 (Mary Jane Mathews [18148] was born about 1862,1 died on 1884 May 15 in Townsville, , Queensland 1 and was buried on 1884 May 15 in Townsville Cemetary, Queensland 1.). The cause of her death was Hydrothorax & Abortion.

bullet  Noted events in their marriage were:

• Registration: Marriage, 1883, Queensland. 6 1883/C532
Edmonds, Josiah
Mathews, Mary Jane


picture

Josiah next married Rosalind Lucy Purss [18151] [MRIN: 7314], daughter of Charles Henry Purss [36032] and Mary Jane Hayden [36033], on 1905 Dec 16 in Ingham, , Queensland.1 (Rosalind Lucy Purss [18151] was born on 1878 Oct 15 in Roma, , Queensland 1.)

bullet  Noted events in their marriage were:

• Registration: Marriage, 1905, Queensland, Australia. 7 1905/C417
Edmonds, Joseph
Cogil, Roselind

• Newspaper: Divorce Note, 1918 May 15, Townsville, , Queensland, Australia. 8 Northern Supreme Court. (1918, May 15). Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1885 - 1954), p. 5. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article59882545>
Northern Supreme Court
DIVORCE ACTION.
The divorce action, Joseph Edmonds (plaintidd and Roselind Edmonds (de-fendant) and Thomas Stallan (co- defendant) was then called on.
Mr R. J. Douglss (instructed by Messrs Connolly and Suthers) ap- peared for the plalntiff): Mr L. W. Marsland (Instructed by Messrs. Hobbs, Wilson and Ryan) appeared for the co-defendant. There was no ap- pearance of council on bahalf of the defendant
The following Jury was empanelled R. P. Bargent, W. H. Montgomerie, F. R. Thistlewaite, J. H. Johns.
The petition of Joseph Edmonds, of Ingham, cattle buyer, set out that heWas married to Roselind Edmonds, then Roselind Cogil, widow, at Ing- ham, in 1906, by W. C. Miller, Dis- trict Registrar of Marriages. After the marriage the parties lived to gether at Ingham and Townsville, and there was issue one child. Mary Jes-sie Edmonds, 9 years. On the 11th June. 1917. at Townsville, and on other days between that day and the date of the petition, at Main Arms, Mullmnbimby, N.S.W., the defendant committed adultery with Thomas Stal- Ian, formerly of Victoria Estate, near Ingham, farmer, but at present of Mullumbimby, dairyman. The plaintiff asked for a dissolution of the marri- age and claimed £1000 damages from the co-defendant.
Mr Douglas, having briefly opened the case, called evidence.
Joseph Edmonds stated he was a drover residing at Ingham. He had lived In Queensland since 1869; about 1895 he went to live with Mrs. Cogrill, who was then a married woman, with one child, and who was living apart from her husband, They lived together until 1906, and then her husband having died, witness married her. (Certificate pro-duced.) Before they were married four children ware born. After the marriage one child was born, and she was a little over 10 years. After the marriage they lived in Ingham, and that year came down to Townsville. where they took over the West End Hotel, his wife being the licensee. Witness paid tor the hotel. They ar-ranged that she was to look after the hotel and run it, and take half the profits. The defendant had authority to draw cheques. He knew the co- defendant (Stallan) who came to stay at the hotel in March, 1917. about a week after they took it over. He had his two daughters with him. On 17th March. witness got up at 4.30 am, and made a cap of tea, and took it to the defendant but when he got to the room he found she was not there. He walked along the passage, and then saw his wife come out of Stallan's room. He asked her what this meant The defendant caught him by the hand and drew him towards their room. stating that she wanted to tell him something. She said that she went to tell Stallan to go away, as he was not wanted there. He said that was a lame excuse and defendant said she would prove it. She then took witness close to Stallan's door, and sang out, "Didn't I tell you you would have to go away to-day?" Stallan replied, "For why, I don't know." Witness then went into the bedroom and told Stallan to get out as quick as he could, and if he ever caught him speaking to Mrs Edmonds again he would murder the two of them. Stallan replied, 'You bad better sart now.' Witness then walked away, as there were a number of boarders there, and he did not want to make a row. Stallan left and also his two daughters, They told witness had a conversation with his wife. He accused her of go-ing into the bedroom, and they had a row. The defendant said there was no harm in it. Witness said there was a lot of harm in it and he would not forgive her. After a few days he cooled down, and defendant then said she would look after the house and the children and would not speak to Stal-lan any more, though she might say "good day," Up to that time witness bad no suspicions of his wife's fidelity, although he noticed the way Stallan hung about his house at Ingham. She had been a good wife to him up till then. She used to do the writing and look after the stock on his own place. She had also been a good mother to the children. Some time in April wit- ness went away droving and returned about 20th May. When he returned he had a conversation with one of his daughters. In consequence of that he spoke to his wife. He accused her of talking to Stallan, and she said he had only returned for a pair of gloves be- longing to his daughter and some other article. He asked her what about having Stallan's daughters in the sulky on beach. She said they were standing in the sand and she just took them up to give them a rest. Witness said she had promised him to have nothing to do with that lot. He said she wanted kicking off the place, and any other and would do it. Fin- ally he agreed to say no more about it,if she would continue to look after him and the children. The defendant hen said she could not stand the work of the hotel, and wanted to get out of it. Witness did not want to sell out but defendant persuaded him to sell. They arranged to sell the hotel delivery to be given on the 11th June, She was to stay at the hotel till he came home again, and they had arranged that he should buy her a place in Syd-ney. After arranging for the sale of the hotel, witness went droving, re-turning about 22nd June. His wife was not at the hote, no was the young-est daughter, Mary Jessie. Witness re-ceived a letter from defendant dated 11th June in which she said, "As you blame me for what I did not do, I am going with him now and you can blame me all right" and also wishing him good-bye for ever. Witness did not see his wife after that. Witness had a nephew (Mr Hof) who balanced the books of the hotel. When witnessed returned on the 2nd June, he found that all of the debts had not been paid, there being £?? at leas unpaid. Be-sides private accounts, as defendant ran up £11 or £12 at McKimmin's the day she went away. There was no money left in the banking account.
Cross-examined by Mr Marsland: Witness had heard his name was Cramb. but his name had been, Ed- monds since he came to Queensland.Witness was married before in 1883 in Georgetown to Mary Jane Matthews, by the Registrar. She was divorced when witness married her. He ran away with her. Her husband left her at his place. He had to pay £500 damages. She was since dead, having dies at Townsville. Witness has never known Cogil, the defendant's first husband. He first met her at Retreat Station, near Longreach. She was employed as housemaid, and her fatheras cook. Witness knew she was mar- ried. They had had quarrels both in their married and unmarried life. The defendant did not object to his treat- ment of his boys. He had not charged her with adultery with his nephew. He had never Insinuated that some of the children were not his. Before he took the hotel he was droving and dealing in cattle and horses. He had never told defendant that his business was cattle-duffing, not cattle buying. one had never objected that the boys were being taught to steal cattle. They were never encouraged to steal cattle: nor did he do so. That was a bit of dirt. It was not his practice to run in and kill other people's cattle at Ingham. The boys never drove cattle at night except when they were on watch. Witness did not know where Cogil died. Witness knew Stallan in Ingham. Witness was not very Jeal- ous of his wife. He did not object to her speaking to other men besides Stallan. Sltallan had been about a week at the hotel when the trouble occurred. On the night previous to 17th April he did not tell the defen- dant that he did not like Stallan and be would have to clear out. Next morning when she was coming from Stallan's room, she told him it was better to tell Stallan in private than in public. He had a revolver under the pillow and he said to defendant that if there was anything between her and Stallan he would never get her as he would "blow his lights out.'' He did not threaten to blow the defen- dant's "light" out. When he re- turned and heard his daughter's story he told the defendant that the best thing she could do was to ''roll up her ----- blankets, and go with Stallan." 8he protested that she had nothing to do with Stallan, and pretended to be annoyed. Witness had never talked of offering £1000 to anyone who would do Stallan in." If He wanted any- thing like that done he could do it himself. The defendent was to have half the profits of the hotel, but they had no squaring up. He (witness never got a penny out of it.
Re-exmnined by Mr. Douglas Wit- ness wanted to get he custody of the child. Mary Jessie, and put her to school with her sister.
Thomas Kitchener Edmonds, son of the petitioned said he was 17 years of age. He enlisted in the A.I.F. and went to Brisbane, but when it was discovered he was only 17 he was dis- charged. In December, 1917. When discharged he went to Mullumbimby, stopping at Tow Stallan's place; Main Arms. about two miles from Mullum- bimby. Ho stayed there for four or five days. Tom Stallan's two daugh- ters were there. his own sister (Mary Jessie) his grandfather, and his mother. Witness stopped in the house. There were four rooms and kitchen in the building. There were three bedrooms. Witness and his grand- father occupied one room. the three girls the second, and Stallan and wit0 ness's another the third. There was only one double bed in that room. Witness sister (Mary Jessie) used to address Stallan as "Father," and de- defendant and co-defendant addressed each other by their christian names.
Alfred Henry Hof, nephew of the plaintiff, stated that whilst plaintiff and his wife kept the West End Hotel he kept the books. The last time he saw the bank bank was on 14th May, 1917. The hotel was handed over on 8th June. In the month before May the amount deposited was £228. The banking account was closed on June 11, 1917, and £149 was withdrawn. There was £80 outstanding debts in connection with the hotel and £10 pri- vate account with McKimmin and Richardson. Witness went to Mullum- bilmby in December last. He went out to a farm called Main Arm. where he saw the defendant. She Asked him what he was doing? He replied that he was bringing her same papers she had bean waiting for, and than served her with a copy of the court and peti- tion. He asked where Stallan was, and served the papers on him. Stal-lan said he did not understand it and asked witness to read it over. They then went to the house, where he had a cup of tea, and read the petition to the defendant and co-defendant. Stallan said "He will get no £1000 damages out of me. Stallan then asked who was plaintiff's solicitor, and witness replied "Challands." Stallan said "He has got me for I have £1800 to come to me through Challands' hands." As regarded the divorce Stal- lan said he would let it side and did not think be would go north to defendit.
Guy Pennefather Ryan, solicitor, stated that he had entered an ap- pearance on behalf of the defendant (Mrs Edmonds). He had received no- tice of trial of the action on 7th May, which had been served on a clerk in his Office.
This concluded the case for theplaintiff.
Mr Marsland briefly outlined the case for co-defendant and called evidence. Roselind Edmonds, the defendant, stated that previous to marrying Ed- monds she had been married to a man named Cogil. She lived with Cogil about nine months, at Charleville, butleft him on account of his drunken habits. Since she left Cogil she had not heard of him. Witness met Ed- monds At Retmat Station, near Long- reach, where sbe was employed as housemaid, and he was a drover. When witness and her father were leaving the ration, plaintiff asked her to live with him, and she agreed. They went to Fermoy opal field. then to George- town, and later to Ingham. During that time four children were born. They lived on friendly terms. Witness used to answer correspondence. She had not objected to tbe boys being engaged in droving work, but objected to them taking the cattle to the but- chers which plaintiff had stolen at night. Edmonds said there was no harm in it, as he would not be caught.That went on from the time they left school until the time they left Ing- ham. Otherwise the plaintiff treated the children well. About two years ago the plaintiff had accused her of carrying on with his nephew. On one occasion plaintiff told her that two of the children were not his. She told him they were the two who were most like him. She had met Stallan at Ing- ham, and he came to their place oc- casionally to buy a few things. There was not the slightest reason for her husband being dissatisfied at her con- duct with Stallan at Ingham. When they came to Townsville the license of the hotel was in her name. She remembered Stallan and his daughters coming to the hotel. He rang witness up from Ingham asking if she could put him and his daughters up for a few days. On the night of 16th March., the plaintiff tols witness, in a conver-sation in the bedroom that Stallan would have to get out. as he did not like him or his daughters about the hotel. Next morning whilst the plain- tiff was making tea, witness went to Stallan's door and knocked. Stallan came to the door, and she told him that he was to go away, and that he had best go quietly before there was any trouble about it. She did not go into the room. On her way back to her room, she met the plantiff, whoasked her where she had bee, and she told him what she had said to Stallan and plaintiff then had a few words, and Stallan was told to get out as soon as he could. That night plaintiff had a row with witness. Plaintiff brought a revolver from under the pillow, and said if there was any- thing between Stallan and her he would never get her, as he would hill her first. She threw the revolver over the balcony. Plaintiff went away, and when he returned his daughter told him that witness had been talking to Stallan to ask did he get two letters she had re-addressed to him. She had not Stallan between 17th ofMarch and that time. On one occasion the plaintiff and his daughter were talking when witness came up, andplaintiff said the best thing she coulddo was to "roll up her blankets and go". It was witness's suggestion that the hotel was sold. Plaintiff did not want to sell out, but she declinedto carry on, as her health would not stand it. No arrangement of any kind had been made by her to go away with Stalan up to the time of the sale. She met Stallan down the street, and it was then arranged. There was no impro-priety between witness and Stallan be-fore 11th June.
Cross-examined by Mr Douglass: She was disgusted with the way that Ed-monds went on. She had not the slightest feeling for Stallan previous to that. He simply met her in the street, and asked her to go away with him. She had known Stallan at Ing-ham, but could not say she knew him well. Whilst in Townsville, she did not knwo he was doing any work. It was about 5 o'clock in the morning when she went to Stallan's room on, 17th March. She had her shoes on, and a kimono over her nightdress.There was no harm in what she had one. After that she only spoke to Stallan once until she went with him on 11th June. She took what receipts she received from the hotel up to11th June. She had spent portion of that money on several things she wanted for herself. It was not a fact that she had given everything she could raise to the defendant (Stallan). She had told her youngest daughter to call the co-defendant father.
This concluded the defendant's case. Mr. Marsland said the only question he was go to speak on was the com-pensation claimed. The plaintiff, he contended, did not come into Court with very clean hands. He had changed his name when he came from New South Wales many years ago. The plaintiff himself had admitted that he had run away with two married women,and was apparently a man to whom the bonds of matrimony were of no value. Yet he sought to recover £1000damages. He contended that plaintiff had sustained, and he (Mr. Marsland)contended that he had practically sus-tained no loss by his wife leaving him as the children had grown up, and the hotel business was disposed of. The letter by the defendant showed that she had left him because she was impro-perly blamed, and she had decided de- liberately to go with Stallan and leave her husband. The plaintiff in this ac-tion he contended, was on the moneymaking game, and the jury should not encourage him in that game. The money they defendant might have taken had nothing to do with Stallan, but was a matter between the plaintiff and herself. It was not shown that a penny of the money went to Stallan. He asked the jury to say there was no damage.
Mr Douglas said the only point raised on the case was the question of dam-ages. The other facts were undisputed.The value of a wife to a man was the valued of her services in looking after the home and the children. But more than that in this case there was the intolerable insult offered in the seduc-tion of the wife. Did the jury not be-lieve that Stallan went to the hotel for the purpose of seducing her? Did the jury beleive that there had been no tender passages between the pair before they left on the 11th June? And then because the man who had been wronged asked for compensation, all sorts of dirt were thrown. He had lived 22 years quite happily with that woman, both before and after marriage, until the co-defendant cam along. He (Mr.Douglas), contended that the evidence showed that the co-defendant had gone off with the plaintiff's wife, and appar-ently some of his money too.§
His honor, in summing up, said this was rather a peculiar case. Plaintiff and defendant began to live with each other in 1895, and continued to live with each other as man and wife until 1905,when they married each other. There was a sort of suggestion that defend-ant's former husband may still be alive, but nobody seemed to have been able to find out whether this was so. There were only two questions he proposed to ask the jury. The first was: "Has the co-defendant committed adultery with the defendant?" Well, as to that, it had practically been admitted. It was not disputed adultery was committed. The substantial question with them was the second one. That was: "What amount of damage was sustained by the plaintiff in having his wife taken from him?" They had to take into considera-tion what loss the husband had sus-tained. They apparently lived a happy life until the co-defendant came along, when defendant ran away . It seemed she was to go to Sydney and live, there with the children. She had not been paying the receipts of the hotel into the bank, and before leaving had drawn the whole amount to her credit, and had left accounts totalling £80. In com- ing to the amount of damage, he did not know whether plaintiff had treated the solemn vow with, the respect it deserved, as during the life of his first wife he was living with another woman.
The jury, after a short retirement, returned with the following answers to the questions. 1.\emdash Yes; 2.\emdash £375.
Mr Douglas asked Hid Honor to find the facts as alleged in the petition, and moved for Judgment for an order nisi- for the dissolution of the marriage and for judgement against the co-defendant for £375, for costs against the co-defend- ant and for custody of the child, Mary Jessie
His honor found the facts as al-leged in the petition, and gave judg-ment for a dissolution of the marriage to be moved absolute after the expira-tion of three months, the custody of the child to be given to plaintiff. He also gave Judgment for the amount asses-sed £375, and all plaintiff's costs to be paid by the co-defendant.

• Newspaper: Divorce Note, 1918 May 16, Townsville, , Queensland, Australia. 9 NORTHERN SUPREME COURT. (1918, May 16). Cairns Post (Qld. : 1909 - 1954), p. 5. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article40288017>
NORTHERN SUPREME COURT.
A Divorce Action.
TOWNSVILLE, May 15.
At the Supreme Court Civil Sittings before Mr. Justice Shand and a jury, the divorce action Joseph Edmonds (plaintiff) and Rosalind Edmonds (defendant) was heard. Mr. Douglas (instructed by Connolly and Suthers appeared for plaintiff), and Mr. L. W. Marsland (instructed by Messrs. Hobbs, Wilson and Ryan) for the co-defendant. Petitioner set forth that he was a cattle buyer and was married to Rosalind Edmonds, then Roselind Cogil, a widow, at Ingham, in 1906, by W. C. Miller, District Re-gistrar of Marriages. After the mar- riage the parties lived together at Ingham and Townsville, and there was issue one child, Mary Jessie Edmonds. 9 years. On nth June, 1917, at Towns-ville, and on other days between that day and the date of the petition at Mullumbimby (N.S.W.) the defendant committed adultery with Thos. Stal-lan, formerly of Victoria Estate, near Ingham (farmer) but at present of Mullumbimby, dairyman. Plaintiff asked for a dissolution of the marri-age and claimed £10,000 damages from co-defendant.
The judgment was for dissolution of the marriage, to be moved abso- lute after the expiration of three months, the custody of the child to be given to plaintiff.
His Honor gave judgment for the amount asses, £37£¶, all plantiff's costs to be paid by co-defendant.


picture

Sources


1 Other Researchers, Shirley Clark. http://www.gencircles.com/users/clarks.

2 NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/), 6260/1858.

3 Queensland Births Deaths and Marriages, 1937/C1153.

4 (http://www.nla.gov.au/ms/findaids/), PERSONAL. (1937, February 18). Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1885 - 1954), p. 6. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article62793860.

5 (http://www.nla.gov.au/ms/findaids/), Family Notices. (1937, February 16). Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1885 - 1954), p. 4. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article62787931.

6 Queensland Births Deaths and Marriages, 1883/C532.

7 Queensland Births Deaths and Marriages, 1905/C417.

8 (http://www.nla.gov.au/ms/findaids/), Northern Supreme Court. (1918, May 15). Townsville Daily Bulletin (Qld. : 1885 - 1954), p. 5. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article59882545.

9 (http://www.nla.gov.au/ms/findaids/), NORTHERN SUPREME COURT. (1918, May 16). Cairns Post (Qld. : 1909 - 1954), p. 5. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article40288017.


Brian Yap (葉文意)

There are other people in this site, for various reasons, some not related at all. Some are married into my family, some I once thought were related and, turns out, they are not.

On the Aborigines: Unfortunately, I can only place global statements not he web pages. The aborigines I am aware of are in the Blackman Line and are from the children of James Blackman and Elizabeth Harley.

only search Genealogy Web Creations


Home | Table of Contents | Surnames | Name List

This Web Site was Created 2016 Feb 11 with Legacy 8.0 from Millennia