Sarah (Thorley) Achurch (1838 - 1923)

Ancestors Descendants

Biography

Sarah Thorley was born on 25 December 1838 in Mount Thorley, Colony of New South Wales and was christened in the Presbyterian Church in Whittingham, Colony of New South Wales ^[1], and died on 4 May 1923 in Singleton, New South Wales, Australia ^{[2] [3]}.

Mother: Mary Thorley, Father: Philip Thorley

"Siblings

James Samuel Thorley

William Thorley

Elizabeth Brown

Mary Anne Kearney

Edward Thorley

Ann Hackett

John Thorley

Philip Thomas Thorley

Agnes Thorley

Married George Judkins Achurch on 15 September 1856, Clarence Town, New South Wales ^[4].

Sarah and George's children were:

George Phillip Achurch 1857 - 1936

William Achurch 1859 - 1859

Daughter Achurch 1859 - 1859

Amos Achurch 1860 1863 - 1957

David Henry Achurch 1866 - 1928

Frederick Achurch b1868 - 1868

Frederick John Achurch 18 1870 -

Mary Thorley Achurch 1874 - 1946

Sources

1. ↑ NSW Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages, 1788-1921
   Birth: Name, Reg. Number/Year, Father's Name, Mother's Name, District
   THORLEY SARAH - 8039/1838 V18388039 121C - PHILIP / MARY - PN (Presbyterian, Whittingham)
2. ↑ NSW Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages, 1788-1991
   Death: Name, Reg. Number/Year, Father's Name, Mother's Name, District
   ACHURCH SARAH - 5448/1923 - PHILIP / MARY - SINGLETON
3. ↑ Singleton Argus (NSW) Tue, 8 May 1923, Page 2
   DEATH OF MRS SARAH ACHURCH
   A very old identity of Singleton, in the person of Mrs Sarah Achurch, of Castlereagh-street, passed away on Friday night. The deceased was born in Singleton, and was 80 years of age. She was married at Clarence Town at the age of 17, to the late Mr. Geo. Achurch, and three sons and two daughters survive her. The funeral took place on Saturday afternoon, the remains being interred in the Church of England cemetery at Whittingham
4. ↑ NSW Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages, 1788-1971
   Marriage: Registration Number/Year, Groom's name, Bride's name, District
   1350/1856 - ACHURCH GEORGE JUDKENS / THORLEY SARAH - DUNGOG

Notes from Peter ACHURCH (Great Great Grandson) Sarah ACHURCH (nee THORLEY).

BIRTH: 1. Sarah Thorley' was born on 25 December 1838 in Mount Thorley, Colony of New South Wales. Ref: NSW Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages, 1788-1921. Birth: Name, Reg. Number/Year, Father's Name, Mother's Name, District THORLEY SARAH - 8039/1838 V18388039 121C - PHILIP / MARY - PN (Presbyterian, Whittingham)

BAPTISM: 2. She was christened on 26 June 1839 in the Presbyterian Church in Whittingham, Colony of New South Wales

RESIDENCE: 3. Australian Record, On line - source may vary according to state. NSW ER, 30 Apr 2015. "Sarah Achurch - Castlereagh Street"

DEATH: 4. She died on 4 May 1923 in Singleton, New South Wales, Australia Ref: NSW Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages, 1788-1991 Death: Name, Reg. Number/Year, Father's Name, Mother's Name, District ACHURCH SARAH - 5448/1923 - PHILIP / MARY - SINGLETON

PROBATE: 5. Australian Record, On line - source may vary according to state. Will 121426 NSW Will Book 1800 - 1952, 28 Apr 2015. "Sarah Achurch, widow, residence Singleton, ob 4 May 1923. Daughter Agnes Pye of (? Soscofold) wife of John Edwin Pye of Sydney (retired railway employee) sole executor. Probate granted to her on 19 November 1923. £1502."

Source: St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Singleton. Register of baptisms, marriages and burials, 1838-1874 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |Baptised | Born | Name | Parents | Surname | Place | Occupation | Rev Recorded | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |26 June 1839 | 25 Dec 1838 | Sarah | Philip | Thorley | Mount Thorley | Settler | Irving Hetherington | | | | | Mary | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Baptism Transcription --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NSW BAPTISM Transcription (Early Church Records) Ref No. Vol 121C No 8039 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Register - Presbyterian Baptisms solemnized in the Parish of | | Wittingham in the County of Northumberland NSW in | | the year 1838-1839 | | | | Name - Sarah THORLEY | | Date of Birth - 25/12/1838 | | Date of Baptism - 26/6/1839 | | | | Father - Philip THORLEY | | Occupation - Settler | | Mother - Mary THORLEY | | Residence - Mount Thorley | | | | Sponsor - | | Minister - Rev Irving Hetherington | | Notes - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | NB: This Transcription is not a certified copy from the Registers | | and cannot be used in any legal proceedings whatsoever. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Death Transcription -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NSW DEATH REGISTRATION TRANSCRIPTION REF NO 1923/5448 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NAME - SARAH ACHURCH | | DATE OF DEATH - 4/5/1923 | | PLACE - CASTLEREAGH STREET SINGLETON MUNICIPALITY NSW | | OCCUPATION - | | SEX - FEMALE | | AGE - 80 | | CONJUGAL STATUS - | | PLACE OF BIRTH - SINGLETON NSW | | TIME IN AUST COLONIES - | | | | FATHER - PHILIP THORLEY | | OCCUPATION - GRAZIER | | MOTHER - MARY GRIFFITH | | | | PLACE OF MARRIAGE - CLARENCE TOWN NSW | | AGE AT MARRIAGE - 17 | | NAME OF SPOUSE - GEORGE ACHURCH | | CHILDREN OF MARRIAGE - GEORGE P 62, AGNES 58, DAVID H 56, FREDERICK G 54, MARY T 51, | | LIVING; 2 MALES DECEASED | | | | INFORMANT - AGNES PYE, DAUGHTER, MARRICKVILLE SYDNEY; WITNESS: GEO E | | BROOMFIELD | | | | CAUSE OF DEATH - 1. SENILITY 2. ANASARCA | | LENGTH OF ILLNESS - 2. 3 DAYS | | MEDICAL ATTENDANT - A STUART BOWMAN | | DATE LAST SEEN - 4/5/1923 | | | | DATE OF BURIAL - 5/5/1923 | | PLACE OF BURIAL - CHURCH OF ENGLAND CEMETERY WHITTINGHAM, SINGLETON | | MINISTER & RELIGION - C W NICHOLLS, CHURCH OF ENGLAND | | UNDERTAKER - GEO E BROOMFIELD | | WITNESSES - WILLIAM SYMONDS, ARTHUR LANE | | | | CREMATION DATE - | | CREMATION PLACE - | | CREMATION INFORMANT - | | CREMATION RELIGION - | | CREMATION WITNESSES - | | | | REGISTERED - 7/5/1923 SINGLETON | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | NB: This Transcription is not a certified copy from the Registers | | and cannot be used in any legal proceedings whatsoever. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Story: Sarah THORLEY was born at "Mount Thorley Homestead" on Christmas Day, Tuesday December 25th, 1838, the eighth child born to Philip THORLEY and Mary GRIFFITHS, in a family of eleven. She was baptised on Wednesday June 25th, 1839 at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Singleton (FM4/7369 No.11) by Rev. Irving Hetherington. Sarah's father was a member of the Howe expedition which discovered the Hunter Valley and was one of the first two families to settle in the valley. His original property there was a 100 acre grant which he named Mt. Thorley, just outside Singleton. Sarah grew up here. Sarah has been remembered for the yards of pretty ribbon she wore tied to her belt which used to flow from the waist behind her as she walked along. Her father prospered and become one of the districts well known and well respected citizens. He owned over 100,000 acres during his lifetime, including the 65,000 acre Bondabolla station on the Namoi River. In 1853 Philip Thorley sold Bondabolla and retired to Clarence Town. He became a financier and speculated in land. In Clarence Town he purchased a fine home, called "Ashgate", on 26 acres on the banks of the Williams River. Philip and his wife moved here with there younger children: Ann 19, Sarah 15, Philip Thomas 14, Agnes 10 and David Samuel 6. It was here in Clarence Town that Sarah met her husband-to-be George Judkins ACHURCH who was construction a Steam Flour Mill. Sarah was the ninth child of Mary and Philip. On Monday September 15, 1856, now aged 18 years, Sarah married Mr. George Judkins Achurch in her family home "Ashgate Cottage" at Clarence Town by Rev. Arthur Mayne (1350/13) with James and Ann Lambert as their witnesses. George, a widower aged 49 years and 30 years Sarah's senior was born at Rushden, Northamptonshire, England in 1807. He married his first wife, Mary Palmer in 1846 and had 2 children who remained in England with family after Mary's death. George by this time had been employed by Philip as the miller for his flour mill at "Mount Thorley". They initially took up residence in Castlereagh Street, Singleton and 10 children followed. First born was George Philip on July 13, 1857 and was baptised Presbyterian on September 6, 1857. The second was a still born daughter born on February 3, 1859. Then Amos on March 21, 1860 and was baptised Presbyterian on April 1, 1860. Followed by Agnes born November 14, 1863. David Henry born on Saturday June 2, 1866 and baptised on Wednesday October 10, 1866. A still born male on January 8, 1868. Frederick born March 6, 1869. Samuel Thomas born November 22, 1870. Mary Thorley born March 25, 1874. William Henry born January 14, 1876. After selling the mill in Clarence Town they moved to Wollombi and seemed to have remained there for many years but there seems to be very little proof of any activities there. However when Philip Thorley made his will in September, 1880 he gave their address as Wollombi. Philip THORLEY died 03/05/1883 and left Sarah the following: Extract I "Upon trust as to all my land situate at North Richmond in the said colony containing 134 acres or thereabouts TO HOLD the same TO such uses as my daughter Sarah ACHURCH, the wife of George ACHURCH, of Wollombi, in the said colony may by deed with direct limit or appoint and in the default of such direction limitation or appointment TO the use of the said Sarah ACHURCH her heirs and assigns." Extract 2 "I bequeath the sum of 100 pounds to my daughter Sarah ACHURCH..." It is unknown if the conditions of the will were fulfilled for many aspects of the will were not executed in accordance with Philip's wishes. It would be very interesting to find out what happened to the Richmond property. This land was certainly a valuable inheritance and if leased, a useful income source and if sold certainly a large cash reserve for Sarah. But by 1884 the family had moved to Gunnedah and they lived at 77 Barber Street. George's occupation was always given as a Miller and it was so when he died on July 23, 1884, the year after Sarah's father. Sarah was a comparatively young widow at 46. Sarah appears to have retired to Singleton after George's death, perhaps to be among other members of her family, as her children were carving their own lives. Sarah Achurch was among those involved in proceedings (see notes on Uncle William Thorley) involving a 100 acre property at Liberty Plains (Homebush). With an outcome for the Thorley family the property was sold and each of Philip's surviving children received their share of the inheritance. Sarah died in her Castlereagh Street home, Singleton on Friday May 4, 1923 (#P121120) at the age of 85 and was buried on Saturday at the Whittingham Church of England Cemetery, Whittingham, NSW. Sarah, although she was known not to like signing legal papers, made her will, leaving daughter Agnes Pye as the sole beneficiary which caused complications with the family after her death.

Source: Newspaper 'The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advocate' (NSW). Tuesday, 23 September, 1856. Page 3. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/18655026 Family Notices Marriage. At Clarence Town, on the 15th instant, by the Rev. A. Wayne, Mr. George Judkins Achurch, Victoria Mills, to Miss Sarah Thorley, fourth daughter of Philip Thorley, Esq., late of Mount Thorley.

Source: Newspaper 'The Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser' (NSW). Thursday, 23 February, 1888. Page 6. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/18956801 DISTRICT NEWS. [From our Various Correspondents.] SINGLETON. POLICE COURT - In the police court on Tuesday the 21st instant, before J. N. Brooks P.M. , Messrs J. C. L. McDouall, and R. H. Mathews, J.'sP. Sarah Achurch, on a charge of being of unsound mind was discharged. Doctor Read deposed that he had had her under his observation since Friday last, and that she was now in a fit state to be discharged.

Source: Newspaper 'The Sydney Morning Herald' (NSW). Wednesday, 22 September, 1897. Page 4. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/14107517 EQUITY COURT. (Before his Honor the Chief Judge in Equity.) HACKETT AND ANOTHER v. BROWN AND OTHERS Mr. Walker, Q.C., Dr. Cullen, and Mr. J. J. Cohen, instructed by Mr. R. W. Thompson (Thompson and Ash agents), for the plaintiffs; Mr. Gordon, instructed by Messrs Sly and Russell, for the defendant Elizabeth Brown; Mr. Knox, instructed by Messrs Thompson and Ash for the defendants, William Thorley, Edward Thorley, James Thorley, John Thorley, David Thorley, Samuel Clift, and C. H. Fitzgerald; Mr. Curlewis, instructed by Messrs. Gould and Shaw for the defendant Sarah Achurch; Mr. Pilcher Q.C., and Mr. Langer Owen, instructed by Mr. F. W. Walker, for the defendant Frances Gadsden; Mr. Owen, instructed by Mr. F. W. Walker, for the defendants Urquhart and Steel. The plaintiffs in this suit are Thomas Hackett and Ann Hackett, his wife and the defendants are Elizabeth Brown, William Thorley, Edward Thorley, Thomas Thorley, John Thorley, David Thorley, Sarah Achurch, Samuel Clift, Charles Henry Fitzgerald, Frances Gadsden, John Urquhart, and Hugh Peden Steel. The statement of claim prays that the rights of all parties in and to a block of 100 acres of land at Homebush, known as Thorley's Farm, may be determined, that it may be declared that no interest of the plaintiffs passed by an indenture of April 8 1892 and that it may be declared that a second indenture of August 27, 1892, is void as against the plaintiffs. It was further prayed that the estate of the testator William Thorley may be administered by the Court, and that there should be a partition of the lands in question. The statement of claim showed that William Thorley, of Richmond, by his will executed in 1855, devised his estate upon trust to permit his son George Henry Thorley to receive the rents and profits for life, and upon his decease the trustees were to sell the real estate and divide the proceeds equally among the children of his brother Philip. The testator died in April, 1885, and his son George Henry in April, 1886. The later took no steps towards proving the will of the testator or obtaining letters of administrators. On November 27, 1891, William Miller Thorley obtained letters of administration under the belief that the testator had died intestate. It was charged that the will was then and for several years afterwards in the possession of the defendant Elizabeth Brown, which fact was not known to the other parties. In 1891 William M. Thorley brought an action of ejectment against William C. Hill and others with respect to the land. Judgement was given for the plaintiff, and this was upheld by the Full Court and subsequently by the Privy Council. On April 8, 1892, the plaintiff Mr. Hackett, and the other beneficiaries under the will other than Sarah Achurch and Elizabeth Brown, executed an indenture in favour of Elizabeth Brown by which they each covenanted to assign one-fourth of their respective interests under the will in any property under the will which might be recovered by them either jointly with Mrs. Brown or by her solely in their behalf, in consideration of Mrs. Brown furnishing all money necessary to attempt to prove the will. This deed was executed by all the parties except Sarah Achurch. It was charged that Mrs Hackett was induced to sign the deed by the representation of Wallace Brown, son of Mrs. Brown, who brought the deed to her already prepared. The deed was never acknowledged by Mrs. Hackett under the Act for the registration of deeds. The plaintiffs stated that they were informed that there never was any opposition to the proof of the will. The plaintiff Thomas Hackett claimed that inasmuch as the will converted the property into personality, it vested entirely in him upon marriage, and could not be conveyed by a deed to which he was not a party, and even if the property was not so converted it could not pass by a deed to which he was not a party. On September 1, 1892 letters of administration were revoked with the consent of W. M. Thorley, and letters of administration were granted to the defendant Elizabeth Brown with the will annexed. In August, 1982 Wallace Brown brought the plaintiffs another deed purporting to be between the beneficiaries under the will of the one part, and the defendants Urquhart and Steel of the other part. The defendants Urquhart and Steel were the attorneys of William M. Thorley as plaintiff in the ejectment action. Brown represented to the plaintiffs that the defendants Urquhart and Steel demanded a conveyance to them of half of the property, and that this was the only means of preventing them from allowing the whole of the property to be turned over to the defendants in the ejectment action, and if the plaintiffs did not execute the deed they would lose all their interest. Relying upon the representations of Brown the plaintiffs executed the deed. The plaintiffs were informed that the execution of the deed by the defendants William Thorley and Thomas was procured by similar representations made by Wallace Brown. The deed was not executed by the defendants, David Thorley, John Thorley, and Sarah Achurch. The deed recited that the Privy Council appeal was being prosecuted, and that large sums of money had been expended and great skill and attention had been bestowed by the defendants Urquhart and Steel, in connection with the proceedings, and large sums of money were due to them, and also that they were in possession of many facts which might prove of great service in the prosecution of the appeal. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants Urquhart and Steel knew that the appeal was in fact being prosecuted solely upon a question of law. It was claimed that there was no consideration for this deed. The defendant Elizabeth Brown in her statement of defence stated that it was not a fact that the will was at the date of the death of G. H. Thorley in her possession nor was it for several years subsequently, but was only in her possession for a short time and was handed by her to R. E. Begg, who was acting as solicitor for all the parties interested. The defence of the defendant Frances Gadsden was in similar terms to those expressed by the defences of Mrs. Brown and Messrs. Urquhart and Steel. The other defendants had filed memoranda submitting to any decree the Court might see fit to make. Mr. Owen invited Mr. Walker to say whether or not after having heard the pleadings read, he considered there was any case to go on with as against the defendants Urquhart and Steel. Mr. Walker said he certainly would not withdraw the case against the gentlemen named. He would put the other side to the proof of their pleadings. The case stands part heard.

Source: Newspaper 'The Sydney Morning Herald' (NSW). Tuesday, 28 September, 1897. Page 3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/14125540 LAW REPORT. EQUITY COURT. (Before his Honor the Chief Judge in Equity.) HACKETT AND ANOTHER v. BROWN AND OTHERS. Mr. Walker, Q.C., Dr. Cullen, and Mr. J. J. Cohen, instructed by Mr. R. W. Thompson (Thompson and Ash, agents), for the plaintiffs; Mr. Gordon, instructed by Messrs. Sly and Russell, for the defendant Elizabeth Brown; Mr. Knox, instructed by Messrs. Thompson and Ash. for the defendants William Thorley, Edward Thorley, James Thorley, John Thorley, David Thorley, Samuel Clift, and C. H. Fitzgerald; Mr. Curlewis, instructed by Messrs. Gould and Shaw, for the defendant Sarah Achurch; Mr. Pilcher, Q.C., and Mr. Langer Owen, instructed by Messrs. Urquhart and Steel, for the defendant Frances Gadsden; Mr. Owen, instructed by Mr. F. W. Walker, for the defendants Urquhart and Steel. The plaintiffs in this suit are Thomas Hackett and Ann Hackett, his wife, and the defendants are Elizabeth Brown, William Thorley, Edward Thorley, Thomas Thorley, John Thorley, David Thorley, Sarah Achurch, Samuel Clift, Charles Henry Fitzgerald, Frances Gadsden, John Urquhart, and Hugh Peden Steel. The statement of claim prays that the rights of all parties in and to a block of 100 acres of land at Homebush, known as Thorley's Farm, may be determined, that it may be declared that no interest of the plaintiffs passed by an indenture of April 8, 1892, and that it may be declared that a second indenture of August 27, 1892, is void as against the plaintiffs. It was further prayed that the estate of the testator William Thorley may be administered by the Court, and that there should be a partition of the lands in question. His Honor in giving judgment said that it was contended that the first deed was bad on the ground that if the property passed as realty the deed should have been acknowledged by the female plaintiff; and if it passed as personality the male defendant was not a party to the instrument. It was contended that the second deed had been obtained by misrepresentation. With regard to the latter contention, he had upon a question of admission of evidence already decided that the deed was clearly one for valuable consideration, and that being so it was immaterial whether or not there had been misrepresentations by a third party. Mr. Walker, however, contended that he was still entitled to argue that the deed was a voluntary one, because it contained a recital which was false or at all events misleading. No authority had been produced for the contention, and he would be very much surprised if one existed. The so-called misleading recital had been explained, and the explanation established beyond all question it was a proper deed and one for valuable consideration. Mrs. Gadsden had found the money for the early proceedings in the ejectment proceedings for the sake of recovering something for her relations, but when the will turned up the interest of her relations was gone and she naturally would not go on with the litigation unless the beneficiaries gave her an interest. It then became a question how the arrangement should be carried out. There was nothing unusual in the conveyance to Messrs. Urquhart and Steel and thence to Mrs Gadsden. The fact that Messrs Urquhart and Steel were prepared to release Mrs Brown from the obligation under which she was to them with regard to costs was an excellent consideration, and even if the evidence which Messrs. Urquhart and Steel possessed was not worth having that would not make the deed a bad one. The proceedings before the Privy Council terminated in favour of the respondents and now the plaintiffs came in and sought to have the deed set aside. The matter was a perfectly straightforward one. It was clear that the interest came to Mrs. Hackett as personal estate under the will of William Thorley. It was after she was married, and there had not been any settlement. It therefore passed to her husband, but before it became his he would have to reduce it into possession. Under these circumstances he considered that the interest was properly described in the deed as the property of the female plaintiff. As for the contention that the husband was not a party to the deed, it would be a monstrous thing if a man were permitted to come in after litigation had been conducted to a successful issue and say, "I allowed my wife to sign the deed; we were smiling all the time because we knew we were on safe ground, the property being mine and not hers." The delay which had been allowed to occur must also be taken into consideration because it was impossible for the Court to put the parties in the same position as they were prior to the execution of the deeds. If the objection had been taken by the plaintiffs at the time there would probably have been no appearance upon the appeal before the Privy Council and the case might have been lost. Under these circumstances the deeds must be declared valid, and the plaintiffs must pay the costs. The question of partition was allowed to stand over until Friday next.

Source: Newspaper 'The Singleton Argus' (NSW). Wednesday, 29 September, 1897. Page 2. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/83255251 INTERESTING WILL CASE. The suit to determine the rights of all parties concerned in a certain area of 100 acres of land near Sydney, and for other directions, was on Tuesday concluded before his Honor the Chief Judge in Equity. The parties were Thomas Hackett and Ann Hackett, his wife, plaintiffs, and Elizabeth Brown, William Thorley, David Thorley, Sarah Achurch, Samuel Clift, Charles Henry Fitzgerald, Francis Gadsden, John Urquhart, and Hugh Poden Steel were the defendants. Mr Gregory Walker, Q.C., and Dr. Cullen (instructed by Mr. R. W. Thompson) appeared for plaintiffs; Mr Gordon (instructed by Messrs. Sly and Russell) for the defendant, Elizabeth Brown. Other defendants were represented by Mr. Pilcher, Q.C., Mr. Langer Owen, Mr. A. Knox, and Mr Curlewis. The case arose out of the will of the late William Thorley, of Richmond, dated May 22, 1855. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that on the 8th April, 1892, the defendants, William Thorley, John Thorley, David Thorley, Edward Thorley, Thomas Thorley, and Sarah Achurch, and the plaintiff, Ann Hackett, of the one part, and Elizabeth Brown, of the other part, agreed that the parties of the first part would each assign one-fourth part of their respective interests under the said will in any property affected by it, recovered either jointly or solely by Elizabeth Brown on their behalf, in consideration of the said defendant providing all money necessary to attempt to prove the will. This indenture or agreement was executed by each except the defendant, Sarah Achurch. In August of the same year, Wallace Brown brought to the plaintiffs another document purporting to be an indenture. It was represented by the said Wallace Brown and the plaintiffs that John Urquhart and Hugh Peden Steel were demanding a conveyance to them of one-half of the said property, and that this was the only means of preventing them from allowing the whole of the said property to be turned over to the defendants in said action, and that unless plaintiffs executed the document aforesaid, they would lose all the interest they had. Relying upon the truth, of this statement, plaintiffs signed the document. The defendant, Gronces Gadsden, claimed some estate or interest in the said lands as an assignee from the defendants, John Urquhart and Hugh Penden Steel, but plaintiffs were of the belief that the said defendant had notice of the circumstances under which the alleged deed of the 27th of August, 1892, was executed by plaintiff. By indenture, dated March 11th, 1895, the defendants, Thomas Thorley and Edward Thorley, conveyed their remaining interests in the said lands to the defendant, Samuel Clift, in consideration of the payment therein; and by an agreement, dated March 9th, in the same year, the defendant, Wm. Thorley, purported to sell, and agreed to convey all his interests in the said lands to the defendant, Charles Henry Fitzgerald. Plaintiffs claimed that the rights of all parties in and to the said 100 acres of land might be declared; that it might also be declared that no interest of the plaintiffs or either of them in the said lands passed by the said indenture, dated 8th April, 1892; that the indenture dated August 27th, 1892, was void as against the plaintiff; and that the plaintiffs, or one of them, was still entitled, notwithstanding the said deed, to the interest purporting to pass from them by the said deed; that, if necessary, the estate of the said Wm. Thorley might be administered by the Court, and new trustees appointed in place of those who predeceased the testator; that a partition of the said lands might be ordered among the parties declared by the Court to be entitled thereto, according to their respective interests; and such other and further relief as the case may require be granted. His Honor held, that the deeds were given for a valuable consideration, and were good in law, and the suit, so far as the deeds were concerned, was dismissed, with costs.

Source: Newspaper 'The Windsor and Richmond Gazette' (NSW). Saturday, 2 October, 1897. Page 4. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/72553095 A Richmond Will Case. IN the Equity Court this week, a suit to determine the rights of all parties concerned in a certain area of 100 acres of land near Sydney, and for other directions, was brought before his Honor the Chief Judge. The parties were Thomas Hackett and Ann Hackett, his wife, plaintiffs, and Elizabeth Brown and others defendants. The case arose out of the will of the late William Thorley, of Richmond, dated May 22, 1855. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that on the 8th April 1892, the defendants, William Thorley, John Thorley, David Thorley, Edward Thorley, Thomas Thorley, and Sarah Achurch, and the plaintiff, Ann Hackett, of the one part, and Elizabeth Brown, of the other part, agreed that the parties of the first part would each assign one-fourth part of their respective interests under the said will in any property affected by it, recovered either jointly or solely by Elizabeth Brown on their behalf, in consideration of the said defendant providing all money necessary to attempt to prove the will. This indenture or agreement was executed by each except the defendant, Sarah Achurch. In August of the same year, Wallace Brown brought to the plaintiffs another document purporting to be an indenture. It was represented by the said Wallace Brown and the plaintiffs that John Urquhart and Hugh Pender Steel were demanding a conveyance to them of one-half of the said property, and that this was the only means of preventing them from allowing the whole of the said property to be turned over to the defendants in said action, and that unless plaintiffs executed the document aforesaid, they would lose all the interest they had. Relying upon the truth of this statement, plaintiffs signed the document. The defendant, Frances Gadsden, claimed some estate of interest in the said lands as an assignee from the defendants, John Urquhurst and Hugh Pender Steel, but plaintiffs were of the belief that the said defendant had notice of the circumstances under which the alleged deed of the 27th August, 1892, was executed by plaintiff. By indenture, dated March 11th, 1895, the defendants, Thomas Thorley and Edward Thorley, conveyed their remaining interests in the said lands to the defendant, Samuel Clift, in consideration of the payment therein; and by an agreement dated March 9th, in the same year, the defendant, Wm Thorley, purported to sell, and agreed to convey all his interest in the said lands to the defendant, Charles Henry Fitzgerald. Plaintiffs claimed that the rights of all parties in and to the said 100 acres of land might be declared; that it might also be declared that no interest of the plaintiff or either of them in the said lands passed by the said indenture, dated 8th April, 1892; that the indenture dated August 27th, 1892, was void as against the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff, or one of them, was still entitled, notwithstanding the said deed, to the interest purporting to pass from them by the said deed; that, if necessary, the estate of the said William Thorley, might be administered by the Court, and new trustees appointed in place of those who predeceased the testator; that a partition of the said lands might be ordered among the parties declared by the Court to be entitled thereto, according to their respective interests; and such other and further relief as the case may require be granted. His Honor held that the deeds were given for a valuable consideration, and were good in law, and the suit, so far as the deeds were concerned dismissed, with costs.

Source: Newspaper 'The Maitland Daily Mercury' (NSW). Saturday, 11 May, 1912. Page 6. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123114490 OUR SINGLETON LETTER. (From our Representative.) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. The municipal council met on Thursday night. Present: The Mayor (Alderman Burns), Alderman Waterhouse, Head, McGowen, Saunders, Ind, and McLachlan. ..... The health committee recommended: - (1) That Mr. W. Lambert's price for the conversion of Mrs. Achurch's closet in Castlereagh-street be accepted, and that he be authorised to complete the work; - Adopted.

Source: Australian Electoral Rolls, 1893-1949. https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-10744-1062310/sarah-achurch-in-australia-electoral-rolls Name: Sarah Achurch. Gender: Female. Voter registration. Year: 1913. State: New South Wales, Australia. Division: Singleton. Sub-division: Singleton. Elector #: 1. 1913. State Electoral Roll. DISTRICT OF SINGLETON. Roll of Electors who vote at SINGLETON POLLING-PLACE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No.| Surname of | Christian name of each | Sex | Residence | Occupation | each Elector | Elector at full length | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 | Achurch | Sarah | F | Castlereagh-street | domestic duties

Source: Newspaper 'The Singleton Argus' (NSW). Saturday, 1 August, 1914. Page 4. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/80153335 POLICE COURT. Mr. R. H. V. Allnutt, P.M., presided at the Court House on Thursday. There was only one case, for hearing, Sarah Achurch being charged with failing to pay sanitary rates for a period extending over more than a year. The magistrate said that he had no jurisdiction in the Police to go back a further period than six months. A verdict was accordingly given for six months' fees, amounting, to 13/-, with 6/- costs.

Source: Newspaper 'The Singleton Argus' (NSW). Saturday, 13 February, 1915. Page 4. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/80165673 POLICE COURT. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11th. (Before Mr B. H. V. Allnutt/ P.M.) SANITARY FEES. Sarah Achurch, of Castlereagh-street, was proceeded against by the Council for non-payment of sanitary fees. Not appearing, an order was made for payment of 11/- and 6/- costs, seven days being allowed in which to pay.

Source: Newspaper 'The Singleton Argus' (NSW). Tuesday, 2 March, 1915. Page 4. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/80166267 ARREARS OF RATES. Mrs S. Achurch, £2/10/8. Case heard exparte. Verdict for full amount.

Source: Newspaper 'The Singleton Argus' (NSW). Tuesday, 8 May, 1923. Page 2. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/80824376 DEATH OF MRS SARAH ACHURCH. A very old identity of Singleton, in the person of Mrs Sarah Achurch, of Castlereagh-Street, passed away on Friday night. The deceased was born in Singleton, and was 80 years of age. She was married at Clarence Town at the age of 17, to the late Mr. Geo. Achurch, and three sons and two daughters survive her. The funeral took place on Saturday afternoon, the remains being interred in the Church of England cemetery at Whittingham.

Source: Newspaper 'The Maitland Daily Mercury' (NSW). Tuesday, 8 May, 1923. Page 3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/124487272 OBITUARY. Mrs. Sarah Achurch, a very old resident, of Singleton, passed away on Friday night at her residence, Castlereagh-Street, aged 80 years. The deceased was a native of Singleton, and had lived here practically all her life. She was married at Clarence Town when 17 years to the late Mr. George Achurch, and three Sons and two daughters survive her. The funeral took place on Saturday afternoon, the remains being interred in the Church of England cemetery at Whittingham.

Source: Newspaper 'The Scone Advocate' (NSW). Friday, 11 May, 1923. Page 3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/157134494 Mrs. Sarah Achurch, who was born in Singleton 80 years ago, died at that place last week-end, three sons and two daughters surviving her.

Source: Newspaper 'The Maitland Weekly Mercury' (NSW). Saturday, 12 May, 1923. Page 3. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136714232 OBITUARY. Mrs. Sarah Achurch, a very old resident of Singleton, passed away on Friday night at her residence, Castlereagh-street, aged 80 years. The deceased was a native of Singleton, and had lived here practically all her life. She was married at Clarence Town when 17 years to the late Mr. George Achurch, and three sons and two daughters survive her. The funeral took place on Saturday afternoon, the remains being interred in the Church of England cemetery at Whittingham.

Source: Newspaper 'Sydney Morning Herald' (NSW). 12 May 1923. ACHURCH, Sarah. Born circa 1842. Died May 4 1923 aged 81. late of Singleton.

Source: Newspaper 'The Sydney Morning Herald' (NSW). Saturday, 12 May, 1923. Page 12. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/16053152 Family Notices DEATHS. ACHURCH. - May 4, 1923, at her Residence, Singleton, Sarah, daughter of the late Philip Thorley, of Mt. Thorley, Singleton, in her 82nd year.

Source: Will of Sarah Achurch 121420. Achurch, Sarah. Late of Singleton, Widow. This is the last Will and testament of me Sarah Achurch of Singleton in the state of New South Wales, Widow. I give device appoint and bequeath all my real and personal estate of every kind and description and wheresoever situated of which I may die possessed (and including any interest I now have in the Estate of any person or persons) unto my daughter Agnes Pye absolutely and I appoint my said daughter to be the sole Executrix of this my Will and I hereby revoke and made void all former and other wills and testamentary writings by me made and do declare this only to be my last Will and testament. In witness whereof I have to this my last Will and testament set my hand that is to say my hand at the foot of .... here of this fourth day of May one thousand nine hundred and twenty three. Sarah Achurch. Signed by the said testatrix as and for her last Will and testament in the presence of us both being present at the same time and we at her request in her presence and in the presence of each other have hereunto subscribed our names as Witnesses. Stuart Bowman - In Black, Singleton May 4th 1923. Arthur Lane, Bricklayer May 4th 1923, Singleton. 19 November 1923. By order. Probate of the last Will and testament of the said deceased was granted to Agnes Pye the wife of John Edwin Pye of Sydney, retired railway employee, the sole Executor named in the said Will Testatrix died at Singleton, 4 May 1923. Estate sworn at £1,502-7-3 nett.

Sarah's probate certificate (121420) states that she died on 4 May, 1923. On the day of her death a Will was executed stating that the estate totalling the sum of £1502 was to be left to her married daughter Agnes Pye. It was witnessed by a Stuart Bowman - in Black, Singleton and Arthur Lane - Bricklayer also of Singleton on 4th May, 1923. On 19th November, 1923 probate was granted to Agnes PYE, wife of John PYE of Sydney, retired railway employee.

Source: Newspaper 'The Singleton Argus' (NSW). Tuesday 27 November 1923. Page 2. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/80946908 MRS. ACHURCH's WILL On Monday, 19th instant, Mr. Justice Harvey granted probate of the will of the late Mrs. Sarah Achurch, of Singleton, to Mrs. Agnes Pye, the sole executrix, on the terms of settlement in court. The will was contested by two of the sons of the deceased, but a settlement was arrived at. Mr. R. K. Manning (instructed by Messrs. Gould & Shaw) appeared for the plaintiff, Mrs. Pye, and Mr Palmer, as town agent for Mr. Waterford, solicitor, of Quirindi, for the defendants.

Source: Australia, New South Wales Deceased Estates Index, 1880-1939. https://www.myheritage.com/research/record-20011-64625/sarah-achurch-in-australia-new-south-wales-deceased-estates-index Name: Sarah Achurch. Death: 4 May 1923. Singleton, New South Wales, Australia Duty paid: 21 Feb 1934 Comments: Occupation: widow Item # Pre A 001607 [20/914]