Analysis: Was Frederick Ward born to his "sister"?
Copyright Carol Baxter 2011
The analysis Who were Frederick Ward’s parents? reveals that bushranger Fred Ward was the youngest son of Michael and Sophia Ward of Windsor. So why do some Thunderbolt works claim that Fred was not the son of Michael and Sophia Ward; that instead he was the son of their daughter Sarah Ann but was brought up by Michael and Sophia as their own child?
This claim first surfaced on the website and in the writings of Sarah Ann Ward’s descendant, Barry Sinclair, and has spread into many website entries, articles, a thesis and a novel. The gist of Sinclair’s argument is that bushranger Fred Ward was listed as aged 28 on his daughter’s 1861 birth certificate so he was clearly born in 1833; that Windsor historian D.G. Bowd listed Fred’s birth-date as 16 May 1836 but that this date should therefore be 16 May 1833 rather than 1836; and that, as Michael and Sophia Ward had a child Harriot born in April 1833, they clearly could not have been the parents of bushranger Fred Ward.[1]
Sinclair then stated that Michael and Sophia Ward’s 16 year-old daughter Sarah Ann Ward was refused permission to marry serving convict John Haswell in mid-1832; that Haswell descendants had always believed that John Haswell fathered Thunderbolt; that Fred was particularly close to Sarah Ann Ward throughout his life; that Fred was clearly born in May 1833 some nine months after the Haswell/Ward marriage refusal; and, therefore, that Fred was evidently the illegitimate child of John Haswell and Sarah Ann Ward and was brought up by Michael and Sophia as their own child, with the Wards conspiring to hide his true parentage.[1]
This argument is deeply flawed. The following analysis explains the errors:
1. While Fred was indeed listed as aged 28 on his daughter’s 1861 Birth Certificate, he was not the informant. He was in gaol at the time. Instead Mary Ann Bugg provided the details.[2] As such, the personal information listed for Fred is second-hand information – that is, “hearsay” evidence – and must be treated accordingly. Hearsay evidence is rarely accepted in a court of law because the person who made the original statement cannot be examined to determine the veracity of their statement. Yet Sinclair has used second-hand information as the foundation for his historical revisionism, information that by its very nature must be of questionable accuracy.
2. Has first-hand information survived – that is, information provided by Fred or his parents? Indeed it has. Fred was admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol two weeks after his daughter’s birth and told the gaol authorities that he was aged 26 at that time, not 28.[3]
This claim first surfaced on the website and in the writings of Sarah Ann Ward’s descendant, Barry Sinclair, and has spread into many website entries, articles, a thesis and a novel. The gist of Sinclair’s argument is that bushranger Fred Ward was listed as aged 28 on his daughter’s 1861 birth certificate so he was clearly born in 1833; that Windsor historian D.G. Bowd listed Fred’s birth-date as 16 May 1836 but that this date should therefore be 16 May 1833 rather than 1836; and that, as Michael and Sophia Ward had a child Harriot born in April 1833, they clearly could not have been the parents of bushranger Fred Ward.[1]
Sinclair then stated that Michael and Sophia Ward’s 16 year-old daughter Sarah Ann Ward was refused permission to marry serving convict John Haswell in mid-1832; that Haswell descendants had always believed that John Haswell fathered Thunderbolt; that Fred was particularly close to Sarah Ann Ward throughout his life; that Fred was clearly born in May 1833 some nine months after the Haswell/Ward marriage refusal; and, therefore, that Fred was evidently the illegitimate child of John Haswell and Sarah Ann Ward and was brought up by Michael and Sophia as their own child, with the Wards conspiring to hide his true parentage.[1]
This argument is deeply flawed. The following analysis explains the errors:
1. While Fred was indeed listed as aged 28 on his daughter’s 1861 Birth Certificate, he was not the informant. He was in gaol at the time. Instead Mary Ann Bugg provided the details.[2] As such, the personal information listed for Fred is second-hand information – that is, “hearsay” evidence – and must be treated accordingly. Hearsay evidence is rarely accepted in a court of law because the person who made the original statement cannot be examined to determine the veracity of their statement. Yet Sinclair has used second-hand information as the foundation for his historical revisionism, information that by its very nature must be of questionable accuracy.
2. Has first-hand information survived – that is, information provided by Fred or his parents? Indeed it has. Fred was admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol two weeks after his daughter’s birth and told the gaol authorities that he was aged 26 at that time, not 28.[3]
Frederick Ward's entry from Darlinghurst Gaol Description Book, 1861
This information tallies neatly with the other statements Fred made regarding his own age. Clearly Fred’s age as listed on his daughter’s birth certificate – the product of second-hand information – cannot be used as evidence that Fred was aged 28 in 1861 (and therefore born in 1833) when he himself stated that he was only 26 at that time. Moreover, he elsewhere stated that he was born in 1835 (see When was Frederick Ward born?).
3. So why did Mary Ann state that Fred was aged 28? Perhaps Fred had upped his age when he realised that she was the elder of the two; both men and women, then and now, prefer relationships where the man is the elder, and marriage certificates abound with ages that have been deliberately adjusted by one party or the other. Or perhaps Mary Ann “adjusted” Fred’s age so he would be the elder, for the same reason. Or perhaps Mary Ann didn’t know his true age because the subject had never arisen. They had been together for less than a year when Fred left her at her father's farm in August or September 1861 and, as Fred’s birthday seemingly fell between 24 August and 2 November (see When was Frederick Ward born?), it is feasible that he hadn't celebrated a birthday in the time they were together. Whatever the reason, Fred’s personal details as listed on his daughter’s birth certificate must not be given precedence over first-hand information provided by Fred himself, information that from its own consistency is clearly reliable.
4. Adjusting a claimed birth-date by three years from 16 May 1836 to 16 May 1833 is problematic – in the extreme. If part of a birth-date is claimed to be inaccurate, then the whole must be considerate inaccurate unless evidence is provided to show otherwise – which was not the situation in this instance.
5. Moreover, the claimed birth-year of 1833 is itself inaccurate. Ages are date-specific, not year-specific. If someone was aged 28 on 26 October 1861, then they could have been born anytime between 27 October 1832 and 26 October 1833, depending upon whether or not they had already celebrated their birthday for the year.
6. Michael and Sophia Ward were not restricted to having only one child born in 1833. They could have had twins.
7. If Sarah Ann Ward did indeed bear a child fathered by John Haswell, it could have been someone other than Fred Ward. Perhaps the infant Harriot Ward, for example? Harriot was born around April 1833,[4] which tallies neatly with Sinclair’s claims regarding the alleged child of Sarah Ann Ward and John Haswell. Harriot was not baptised so her parentage is not known with certainty. Bushranger Fred Ward, by contrast, was clearly born in 1835, not 1833 (see When was Frederick Ward born?), so he could not have been the child of Sarah Ann Ward and John Haswell.
8. Sarah Ann Ward had many children (a dozen according to some claims) yet only two were born in wedlock (see Timeline: Sarah Ann Ward and her family). So how can Sinclair argue – in all seriousness – that the Ward family had any need to hide the “truth” regarding the birth of one such illegitimate child, a conspiracy of silence that has lasted, supposedly, for 170 years? The Wards were a convict family, members of the criminal classes in the eyes of the broader community. They had no reputation to maintain. Indeed, illegitimacy was a minor sin in convict New South Wales. Moreover, the Wards didn’t need to hide the truth so Sarah Ann could make a socially advantageous marriage. Instead, she gave birth to another illegitimate child in 1834, marrying the convict father fifteen months later when pregnant with their next child.[5]
9. Which raises another issue. Sinclair also claims that Sarah Ann Ward’s eldest four children were born as follows: Fred (aka Thunderbolt) in May 1833, John Garbutt in 1834, James Garbutt in 1835 and Maria Garbutt in 1836 – although he provides no substantiating evidence regarding the births of the latter two children.[6] This claim is problematic in itself. In the 1800s, most children were born approximately two years apart, so the timeframes between these four children are extraordinarily short. John Garbutt's birthdate is provided in his Baptism entry: 12 September 1834. Even if Maria was born on 31 December 1836, this indicates that the average timeframe between the births of John and James, and between James and Maria was only 14 months each. Short timeframes between children generally occurred when an infant died soon after birth and the contraceptive effects of breast-feeding disappeared. Mothers sometimes had two children close together however this rarely happened time after time as neither child flourished when children were conceived close together. Therefore the claim that four surviving children were born in three-and-a-half years – or less – rings very loud alarm bells indeed.
10. It is essential, as always, to seek evidence rather than to simply accept unsubstantiated claims at face value. Detailed source-referenced information for Sarah Ann Ward and her family is found at Timeline: Sarah Ann Ward and her family. This information suggests that in 1837 or thereabouts, Sarah abandoned her husband John Garbutt for William Shepper; they had a daughter Susannah Shepper born 30 August 1838.[7] That being the case, if Sarah and her husband John Garbutt did indeed have a daughter Maria, it is likely that she was born in 1836, although evidence needs to be found to support this hypothesis.
11. As it turns out, Maria Garbutt was definitely the daughter of Sarah Ann Ward. The witnesses to her Marriage included her grandmother Sophia Ward and her half-sister Susan Sheppard.[8]
12. So when was Maria Garbutt born? The birth certificates of her eldest two children, Henry and Roland Dewson state that Maria was aged 22 in April 1858 and 23 in October 1859.[9] These date-specific ages produce a likely birth-window for Maria between 13 October 1835 and 5 April 1836 (or perhaps as late as 15 May 1836, if the certificates listed her age at the time of Roland's birth registration rather than the birth itself). This birth-window was generated from two rather than the more reliable three references to Maria’s age, and the information itself was provided by Maria’s husband rather than herself. However, as the resulting birth-window is only six months wide, this indicates that the ages listed for Maria were consistent. Moreover, the known births of Sarah’s surrounding children limit when Maria could have been born (John Garbutt in September 1834 and Susannah Shepper in August 1838), so the ages and birth-window are likely to be accurate.
13. Sarah Ann Ward’s son John was born on 12 September 1834 according to his baptism entry.[5] If Sarah's daughter Maria was born no later than 15 May 1836 (as her age references suggest)[9], then Maria was born no more than twenty months after John. As such, it is extremely unlikely that Sarah had a child born between John and Maria. Otherwise Sarah would have fallen pregnant only ten months after the birth of her previous living child on not just one but two consecutive occasions.
14. Surviving evidence supports the argument that Sarah did not have a child born between John in 1834 and Maria in 1836. Sarah’s first husband, John Garbutt Snr, died in August 1839, and the paperwork associated with the administration of his estate states: “He was a married man and had two children living by his wife, who is still alive, and living with another man at Liverpool Plains and the man with whom she cohabits, I have this day learnt, gave Garbutt a horse not to molest him in the possession of his wife and Garbutt took charge of both his children” (see below).[10]
3. So why did Mary Ann state that Fred was aged 28? Perhaps Fred had upped his age when he realised that she was the elder of the two; both men and women, then and now, prefer relationships where the man is the elder, and marriage certificates abound with ages that have been deliberately adjusted by one party or the other. Or perhaps Mary Ann “adjusted” Fred’s age so he would be the elder, for the same reason. Or perhaps Mary Ann didn’t know his true age because the subject had never arisen. They had been together for less than a year when Fred left her at her father's farm in August or September 1861 and, as Fred’s birthday seemingly fell between 24 August and 2 November (see When was Frederick Ward born?), it is feasible that he hadn't celebrated a birthday in the time they were together. Whatever the reason, Fred’s personal details as listed on his daughter’s birth certificate must not be given precedence over first-hand information provided by Fred himself, information that from its own consistency is clearly reliable.
4. Adjusting a claimed birth-date by three years from 16 May 1836 to 16 May 1833 is problematic – in the extreme. If part of a birth-date is claimed to be inaccurate, then the whole must be considerate inaccurate unless evidence is provided to show otherwise – which was not the situation in this instance.
5. Moreover, the claimed birth-year of 1833 is itself inaccurate. Ages are date-specific, not year-specific. If someone was aged 28 on 26 October 1861, then they could have been born anytime between 27 October 1832 and 26 October 1833, depending upon whether or not they had already celebrated their birthday for the year.
6. Michael and Sophia Ward were not restricted to having only one child born in 1833. They could have had twins.
7. If Sarah Ann Ward did indeed bear a child fathered by John Haswell, it could have been someone other than Fred Ward. Perhaps the infant Harriot Ward, for example? Harriot was born around April 1833,[4] which tallies neatly with Sinclair’s claims regarding the alleged child of Sarah Ann Ward and John Haswell. Harriot was not baptised so her parentage is not known with certainty. Bushranger Fred Ward, by contrast, was clearly born in 1835, not 1833 (see When was Frederick Ward born?), so he could not have been the child of Sarah Ann Ward and John Haswell.
8. Sarah Ann Ward had many children (a dozen according to some claims) yet only two were born in wedlock (see Timeline: Sarah Ann Ward and her family). So how can Sinclair argue – in all seriousness – that the Ward family had any need to hide the “truth” regarding the birth of one such illegitimate child, a conspiracy of silence that has lasted, supposedly, for 170 years? The Wards were a convict family, members of the criminal classes in the eyes of the broader community. They had no reputation to maintain. Indeed, illegitimacy was a minor sin in convict New South Wales. Moreover, the Wards didn’t need to hide the truth so Sarah Ann could make a socially advantageous marriage. Instead, she gave birth to another illegitimate child in 1834, marrying the convict father fifteen months later when pregnant with their next child.[5]
9. Which raises another issue. Sinclair also claims that Sarah Ann Ward’s eldest four children were born as follows: Fred (aka Thunderbolt) in May 1833, John Garbutt in 1834, James Garbutt in 1835 and Maria Garbutt in 1836 – although he provides no substantiating evidence regarding the births of the latter two children.[6] This claim is problematic in itself. In the 1800s, most children were born approximately two years apart, so the timeframes between these four children are extraordinarily short. John Garbutt's birthdate is provided in his Baptism entry: 12 September 1834. Even if Maria was born on 31 December 1836, this indicates that the average timeframe between the births of John and James, and between James and Maria was only 14 months each. Short timeframes between children generally occurred when an infant died soon after birth and the contraceptive effects of breast-feeding disappeared. Mothers sometimes had two children close together however this rarely happened time after time as neither child flourished when children were conceived close together. Therefore the claim that four surviving children were born in three-and-a-half years – or less – rings very loud alarm bells indeed.
10. It is essential, as always, to seek evidence rather than to simply accept unsubstantiated claims at face value. Detailed source-referenced information for Sarah Ann Ward and her family is found at Timeline: Sarah Ann Ward and her family. This information suggests that in 1837 or thereabouts, Sarah abandoned her husband John Garbutt for William Shepper; they had a daughter Susannah Shepper born 30 August 1838.[7] That being the case, if Sarah and her husband John Garbutt did indeed have a daughter Maria, it is likely that she was born in 1836, although evidence needs to be found to support this hypothesis.
11. As it turns out, Maria Garbutt was definitely the daughter of Sarah Ann Ward. The witnesses to her Marriage included her grandmother Sophia Ward and her half-sister Susan Sheppard.[8]
12. So when was Maria Garbutt born? The birth certificates of her eldest two children, Henry and Roland Dewson state that Maria was aged 22 in April 1858 and 23 in October 1859.[9] These date-specific ages produce a likely birth-window for Maria between 13 October 1835 and 5 April 1836 (or perhaps as late as 15 May 1836, if the certificates listed her age at the time of Roland's birth registration rather than the birth itself). This birth-window was generated from two rather than the more reliable three references to Maria’s age, and the information itself was provided by Maria’s husband rather than herself. However, as the resulting birth-window is only six months wide, this indicates that the ages listed for Maria were consistent. Moreover, the known births of Sarah’s surrounding children limit when Maria could have been born (John Garbutt in September 1834 and Susannah Shepper in August 1838), so the ages and birth-window are likely to be accurate.
13. Sarah Ann Ward’s son John was born on 12 September 1834 according to his baptism entry.[5] If Sarah's daughter Maria was born no later than 15 May 1836 (as her age references suggest)[9], then Maria was born no more than twenty months after John. As such, it is extremely unlikely that Sarah had a child born between John and Maria. Otherwise Sarah would have fallen pregnant only ten months after the birth of her previous living child on not just one but two consecutive occasions.
14. Surviving evidence supports the argument that Sarah did not have a child born between John in 1834 and Maria in 1836. Sarah’s first husband, John Garbutt Snr, died in August 1839, and the paperwork associated with the administration of his estate states: “He was a married man and had two children living by his wife, who is still alive, and living with another man at Liverpool Plains and the man with whom she cohabits, I have this day learnt, gave Garbutt a horse not to molest him in the possession of his wife and Garbutt took charge of both his children” (see below).[10]
Inquest report regarding John Garbutt, died 1839
This paperwork clearly states that John and Sarah Ann Garbutt had only two children, not three. John (baptised in 1835 on the same day as their marriage) was obviously one of these children. Maria, born in 1836 and alive until 1917, was undoubtedly the other. So where did James Garbutt fit into the family?
13. While the references to Maria Garbutt’s age are consistent, the references to James Garbutt’s age are inconsistent – astonishingly so. The Maitland Gaol Description Book in 1856 listed that James Garbutt was born in 1835, while another gaol register in 1894 reported that he was born in 1839[11], however most other references indicate that he was born between 1828 and 1834. He said that he was aged 23 when admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol in August 1856 (therefore born between August 1832 and August 1833), and aged 27 when admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol in July 1861 (therefore born between July 1833 and July 1834).[12] His wife said that he was aged 36 when she registered the birth of their daughter Alice Mary Maud Garbutt in July 1867 (therefore born between July 1830 and July 1831). His Death Certificate in July 1906 stated that he was aged 77 and his burial entry aged 76, suggesting that he was born between July 1828 and July 1830.[13] The latter three references are unreliable as the information was not provided by James himself and do not tally with his own references to his age.
14. Interestingly, John Garbutt Jnr’s references to his own age also varied considerably, perhaps because he was “fostered” by another family after his father’s death just before he turned five, and was uncertain about his birth-date (see John Garbutt). However, one important source provides evidence of the Garbutt brothers’ birth order. When John and James Garbutt were admitted together to Darlinghurst Gaol in 1861, James stated that he was aged 27 and John that he was aged 25 (see below):[14]
13. While the references to Maria Garbutt’s age are consistent, the references to James Garbutt’s age are inconsistent – astonishingly so. The Maitland Gaol Description Book in 1856 listed that James Garbutt was born in 1835, while another gaol register in 1894 reported that he was born in 1839[11], however most other references indicate that he was born between 1828 and 1834. He said that he was aged 23 when admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol in August 1856 (therefore born between August 1832 and August 1833), and aged 27 when admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol in July 1861 (therefore born between July 1833 and July 1834).[12] His wife said that he was aged 36 when she registered the birth of their daughter Alice Mary Maud Garbutt in July 1867 (therefore born between July 1830 and July 1831). His Death Certificate in July 1906 stated that he was aged 77 and his burial entry aged 76, suggesting that he was born between July 1828 and July 1830.[13] The latter three references are unreliable as the information was not provided by James himself and do not tally with his own references to his age.
14. Interestingly, John Garbutt Jnr’s references to his own age also varied considerably, perhaps because he was “fostered” by another family after his father’s death just before he turned five, and was uncertain about his birth-date (see John Garbutt). However, one important source provides evidence of the Garbutt brothers’ birth order. When John and James Garbutt were admitted together to Darlinghurst Gaol in 1861, James stated that he was aged 27 and John that he was aged 25 (see below):[14]
Entries for John and James Garbutt from Darlinghurst Gaol Description Book, 1861
Enlargement of age details shown in previous photocopy
15. Clearly, the Garbutt brothers were themselves asserting that James was the elder and John the younger. That being the case, James Garbutt must have been born no later than mid-1833. It is therefore interesting to note that the ages James provided for himself when admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol in 1856 and 1861 suggest a narrow birth-window between July and August 1833. However as James elsewhere said he was born in 1835 and in 1839, this lack of consistency combined with the fact that the birth-window falls only thirteen or fourteen months before John Garbutt’s birth-date in September 1834, raises some doubts as to its likely accuracy.
16. If James Garbutt was indeed the elder brother and was born in 1833 or earlier (as the evidence clearly indicates), this would explain why John Garbutt Snr did not get “custody” of him when Sarah Ann Ward ran off with William Shepper. Back in mid-1832, the sixteen-year-old Sarah Ann Ward was attempting to marry John Haswell, so any child born to her in 1833 was almost certainly Haswell’s child. Sarah evidently established a relationship with John Garbutt Snr when James was an infant (or perhaps even earlier while she was still pregnant), so it is not surprising that James carried the surname Garbutt and claimed John Garbutt Snr as his father (according to his own Death Certificate). However Garbutt Snr was clearly unable (or unwilling) to lay claim to James when Sarah took up with William Shepper, indicating that he knew James was not his child. This would also explain why James Garbutt stated, with regard to his half-brother John, that: “I have never been much in his company”.[15] After their father's death, John Garbutt was brought up by John Crowder of Lochinvar,[15] while Maria seems to have been brought up by her Ward grandparents.[16]
17. Seemingly, Haswell descendants were correct in their belief that John Haswell had an illegitimate child and that the child had a connection with Thunderbolt. However the child was not Thunderbolt himself, but Thunderbolt’s nephew, James Garbutt. This is an example of family stories being distorted over time – see Family stories as historical evidence.
Summary: Clearly, bushranger Fred Ward could not possibly have been Sarah Ann Ward’s child, not only because he was born in 1835 when she was busy having other children, but because the child Sarah did bear in 1833 was evidently her son James – the very same James Garbutt who was tried with Fred Ward at Maitland in 1856.
16. If James Garbutt was indeed the elder brother and was born in 1833 or earlier (as the evidence clearly indicates), this would explain why John Garbutt Snr did not get “custody” of him when Sarah Ann Ward ran off with William Shepper. Back in mid-1832, the sixteen-year-old Sarah Ann Ward was attempting to marry John Haswell, so any child born to her in 1833 was almost certainly Haswell’s child. Sarah evidently established a relationship with John Garbutt Snr when James was an infant (or perhaps even earlier while she was still pregnant), so it is not surprising that James carried the surname Garbutt and claimed John Garbutt Snr as his father (according to his own Death Certificate). However Garbutt Snr was clearly unable (or unwilling) to lay claim to James when Sarah took up with William Shepper, indicating that he knew James was not his child. This would also explain why James Garbutt stated, with regard to his half-brother John, that: “I have never been much in his company”.[15] After their father's death, John Garbutt was brought up by John Crowder of Lochinvar,[15] while Maria seems to have been brought up by her Ward grandparents.[16]
17. Seemingly, Haswell descendants were correct in their belief that John Haswell had an illegitimate child and that the child had a connection with Thunderbolt. However the child was not Thunderbolt himself, but Thunderbolt’s nephew, James Garbutt. This is an example of family stories being distorted over time – see Family stories as historical evidence.
Summary: Clearly, bushranger Fred Ward could not possibly have been Sarah Ann Ward’s child, not only because he was born in 1835 when she was busy having other children, but because the child Sarah did bear in 1833 was evidently her son James – the very same James Garbutt who was tried with Fred Ward at Maitland in 1856.
Sources
[1] Thunderbolt website
[http://users.tpg.com.au/users/barrymor/John%20Haswell's-Sarah%20Ward's%20Banns%20Applications%201832.html]. Sinclair does not make a coherent argument to this effect. It proved necessary to piece together the substance of his argument from bits and pieces on his website.
[2] Birth Certificate: Marina Emily Ward [RBDM ref: 1861/7193]
[3] Darlinghurst Gaol – Description Book: Frederick Ward, 1861 [SRNSW ref: 4/6309, Year 1861 No. 2103; Reel 860]
[4] Burial: Harriot Ward [SRNSW ref: Vol.18 No.2321; Reel 5004]
[5] Marriage: John Garbitt & Sarah Ann Ward [SRNSW ref: Vol.19 No. 1341; Reel 5004]; Baptism: John Garbitt [SRNSW Vol.19 No.717; Reel 5004]
[6] Sarah Ann Ward [http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=thunderbolt&id=I00065]
[7] Baptism: Susannah Shepper [SRNSW ref: Vol. 121 No.8045; Reel 5046]
[8] Marriage: James Dewson & Maria Garbutt [SRNSW ref: Vol. 82 No. 238; Reel 5032]
[9] Birth certificates: Henry James Dewson and Roland Drew [RBDM ref: 1858/9715 & 1859/0010097]
[10] Intestate File: John Garbutt, 1839 [SRNSW 6/3492 No.291]
[11] Maitland Gaol - Description Book: James Garbut, 1856 [SRNSW No.192; Reel 759]; Bathurst Gaol Description Book - 1894 [SRNSW ref: 3/5959 Photo No. 506 p.44; see http://srwww.records.nsw.gov.au/ebook/list.asp?Page=Gaol Photos/1998_a006_a00603_5959000044r.jpg&Remark=James GARBUTT]
[12] Darlinghurst Gaol - Description Book: James Garbut, 1856 [SRNSW ref: 4/6306 Year 1856 No.1773; Reel 859]; Darlinghurst Gaol - Description Book: James Garbutt, 1861 [SRNSW ref: 4/6309 Year 1861 No. 1516; Reel 860]
[13] Death Certificate: James Garbett [RBDM ref: 1906/9535]; Burial entry: James Garbutt in St John’s Church of England, Mudgee [SAG ref: Reel 339]
[14] Darlinghurst Gaol - Description Book: John Charles Garbutt & James Garbutt, 1861 [SRNSW ref: 4/6309 Year 1861 Nos. 1515 & 1516; Reel 860]
[15] Legislative Assembly Tabled Papers: Statement of John Garbutt regarding Ludwig Leichhardt, 1857, &c. [NSWPA LA TP 1857/409]
[16] That Maria seems to have been brought up by her Ward grandparents is suggested by the fact that she was apparently living with them at the time of her marriage in 1856 rather than near Warialda with her mother Sarah Ann Ward and Edwards children (Timeline: Sarah Ann Ward and her family).
[1] Thunderbolt website
[http://users.tpg.com.au/users/barrymor/John%20Haswell's-Sarah%20Ward's%20Banns%20Applications%201832.html]. Sinclair does not make a coherent argument to this effect. It proved necessary to piece together the substance of his argument from bits and pieces on his website.
[2] Birth Certificate: Marina Emily Ward [RBDM ref: 1861/7193]
[3] Darlinghurst Gaol – Description Book: Frederick Ward, 1861 [SRNSW ref: 4/6309, Year 1861 No. 2103; Reel 860]
[4] Burial: Harriot Ward [SRNSW ref: Vol.18 No.2321; Reel 5004]
[5] Marriage: John Garbitt & Sarah Ann Ward [SRNSW ref: Vol.19 No. 1341; Reel 5004]; Baptism: John Garbitt [SRNSW Vol.19 No.717; Reel 5004]
[6] Sarah Ann Ward [http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=thunderbolt&id=I00065]
[7] Baptism: Susannah Shepper [SRNSW ref: Vol. 121 No.8045; Reel 5046]
[8] Marriage: James Dewson & Maria Garbutt [SRNSW ref: Vol. 82 No. 238; Reel 5032]
[9] Birth certificates: Henry James Dewson and Roland Drew [RBDM ref: 1858/9715 & 1859/0010097]
[10] Intestate File: John Garbutt, 1839 [SRNSW 6/3492 No.291]
[11] Maitland Gaol - Description Book: James Garbut, 1856 [SRNSW No.192; Reel 759]; Bathurst Gaol Description Book - 1894 [SRNSW ref: 3/5959 Photo No. 506 p.44; see http://srwww.records.nsw.gov.au/ebook/list.asp?Page=Gaol Photos/1998_a006_a00603_5959000044r.jpg&Remark=James GARBUTT]
[12] Darlinghurst Gaol - Description Book: James Garbut, 1856 [SRNSW ref: 4/6306 Year 1856 No.1773; Reel 859]; Darlinghurst Gaol - Description Book: James Garbutt, 1861 [SRNSW ref: 4/6309 Year 1861 No. 1516; Reel 860]
[13] Death Certificate: James Garbett [RBDM ref: 1906/9535]; Burial entry: James Garbutt in St John’s Church of England, Mudgee [SAG ref: Reel 339]
[14] Darlinghurst Gaol - Description Book: John Charles Garbutt & James Garbutt, 1861 [SRNSW ref: 4/6309 Year 1861 Nos. 1515 & 1516; Reel 860]
[15] Legislative Assembly Tabled Papers: Statement of John Garbutt regarding Ludwig Leichhardt, 1857, &c. [NSWPA LA TP 1857/409]
[16] That Maria seems to have been brought up by her Ward grandparents is suggested by the fact that she was apparently living with them at the time of her marriage in 1856 rather than near Warialda with her mother Sarah Ann Ward and Edwards children (Timeline: Sarah Ann Ward and her family).