John Henry Roberts (1846 - 1931)

Born 30 May 1846 in Charlestown, St Austell, Cornwall, England

Ancestors

Husband of Catherine Lavina (Williscroft) Wilks — married 24 Jun 1873 in Woodside, New Zealand

Husband of Susan (Shackson) Roberts — married 7 Oct 1886 in New Zealand

Husband of Rachel (Williams) Roberts — married 1890 in Levin, Manawatu, New Zealand

Descendants

Died 31 Mar 1931 at age 84 in Eureka, Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand

Problems/Questions Profile manager: Anonymous Brickland [send private message]

Biography

Born 30 MAY 1846. Charlestown, St Austell, Cornwall, England. ^[1]

Died 31 MAR 1931. Eureka, Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand. ^[2]

Note: Wairarapa Newspaper Index. ROBERTS John H, 3 Jan 1881, Wairarapa Daily, Page 4, Column 5; Page 2, Column 4. Living in Makino in 1883 then Wanganui when his wife left him.

Census: 1851 St Austell, Cornwall, England. ^[3]

Baptism: 25 DEC 1853. Charlestown, St Austell, Cornwall, England. ^[4]

Buried 2 APR 1931. Hamilton East, Waikato, New Zealand. ^[5]

Probate: 24 APR 1931. Wellington, New Zealand. ^[6]

Marriage Marriage 24 JUN 1873. Woodside, New Zealand. ^[7][8][9] Divorce: 22 APR 1886. New Plymouth, Taranaki, New Zealand. ^{[10][11][12][13]}

1890 Levin Rachel Williams bdm index, 3101.

Sources

1. ↑ Source: #S1739 jun qtr 9 11 St Austell Page jun qtr 9 11 St Austell
2. ↑ Source: #S1754 91 Page 91 John Henry Roberts, farmer; 85; coroners verdict, heart failure due to senile decay; Henry Roberts, Maria Roberts, Hawk, labourer; bur 2 Apr 1931, Hamilton East; D H Hay, presbyterian; b Cornwall, 66; Hutt? 27, Catherine Lavinia Williscroft, Palmerston North, 40, Susan Saxton, Levin, 44, Rachel Williams, no widow; f 53; G E Callagher, authorised in writing by coroner, Hamilton.
3. ↑ Source: #S1748 HO107 1907 159 18 Page HO107 1907 159 18 Charleston. Maria Roberts, head, wid,40, b St Columb; Harriet, dau, 11, b St Austell; Mary A, dau, 8, b St Blazey; William G, son, 6, b St Austell; John H, son, 4, b St Austell.
4. ↑ Source: #S1782 Page Haney and Maria, Chstwn, schoolmaster, born 30 May 1846
5. ↑ Source: #S1745 Page John Henry Roberts, 85, d 31-March-1931, bur Thursday 02-April-1931, Body, BB-Q-022, Funeral Director Tongue & Scrimshaw
6. ↑ Source: #S1788 AAOM 6029 48580 Page AAOM 6029 48580 Roberts John Henry, Eureka (f Auckland), retired farmer, filed 24 Apr 1931, will. Archives Wellington
7. ↑ Source: #S1762 25 Page 25 Residence of Mr Frederick Williscroft; John Henry Roberts, 25, labourer, bachelor; Catherine Levina Wiliscroft, 17, spinster; by John Law. Witnesses Mary Williscroft, Woodside; Alex Gallon, Woodside.
8. ↑ Source: #S1739 1067 Page 1067
9. ↑ Source: #S1768 Page Wellington Independent, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3841, 26 June 1873, Page 2 MARRIAGES. Roberts— Williscroft. On June 24, at the residence of Mr Williscroft, Woodside, by the Rev J. Law, Mr John H. Roberts to Catherine L. Williscroft, both of Woodside.
10. ↑ Source: #S1768 Page Wanganui Herald, Volume XX, Issue 5883, 20 April 1886, Page 2 DIVORCE. ROBERTS V ROBERTS AND JOHN WILKS (CORESPONDENT) Mr Baker appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Hutchison for co-respondent. The following jury were empanelled J. Windsor, A. Hallaghan, T. Allen, J. Manley, S. Richards, P. Galvin, W. H. Nettleship, F. R. Parkes, B. Perry, J. Hatcher, and E. Perritt, Mr Parkes was chosen Foreman. Mr. Baker stated that the details were few, as the parties were living in open adultery, The petition set forth that the parties were married on the 24th of June, 1873, by the Rev. J, Law, at Wairarapa, by which marriage there had been issue three children; that on the 6th of March, 1883, Catherine Lavinia Roberts left her husband, and since that time had lived in open adultery with the co-respondent. The questions to be submitted would be— (l) Whether the adultery had been committed (2) Whether with any other person than the co-respondent and (3) what damages, if any, was petitioner was entitled to. John Roberts, the husband, gave evidence as to the time his wife had left him and her conduct since then. Mr Hutchison asked to be allowed to postpone the cross-examination, as there was no evidence of adultery against the co-respondent. His Honor agreed to this course. On looking at the marriage certificate His Honor said that he djd not consider it sufficient for the purposes of evidence, not bearing the Registrar-General's stamp, The clergyman's certificate was not sufficient. The law provided for one means of proof, and that must be given, unless witnesses of the marriage could be called. Mr Baker replied that be had a witness to prove the marriage; After hearing a quantity of evidence, both for and against, the jury were addressed by counsel and His Honor, and then retired to consider their verdict. On resuming at 2.30 the foreman of the jury came in to ask a question as to costs going against the co-respondent, to which His Honor replied that, in any case, the co-respondent would have to bear costs. A few minutes later the jury returned with a verdict for one shilling damages against the co-respondent. The decree nisi was granted.
11. ↑ Source: #S1768 Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 134, 22 April 1886, Page 3 Page Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 134, 22 April 1886, Page 3 Wanganui Divorce Case ROBERTS V ROBERTS AND WILKS. WANGANUI, April 20. Mr Baker appeared for the petitioner and Mr Hutchison for the corespondent. Mr Baker opened his case by reading the petition, and stated that the petitioner wished to obtain the divorce on account of his wife committing adultery with J. Wilks. The respondent did not appear, but the co-respondent did, in answer to a claim against him for damages. Mr Baker called the petitioner, J. H. Roberts, who deposed that he was a labourer residing at Palmerston was married in 1873 to Catherine L. Williscroft at Woodside had in his possession a marriage certificate had three children by the marriage remembered March, 1883; was living at Makino then came to Wanganui that month saw his wife in Wanganui; she left him in March, 1883, and had never returned to her home since she took the youngest child away with her knew the co-respondent found his wife in a house at Wanganui; asked her what she intended to do; she said she did not care for him or the children asked her to return she said, 'I never will' ; she said she could not live with him on account of his always grumbling at her went and took a solicitor's advice in consequence of something he heard, went to Bakertown, near Woodville, and saw his wife there; went with a Mr W. Francis, of Woodyille, to a house occupied by the co-respondent, Wilks, and saw his wife there Mr Francis knocked at the door petitioner's wife came to the door; Mr Francis said Mrs Wilks, someone wants to see you" petitioner then said, Good evening, Mrs Wilks"; she said nothing; up to the 5th of March, 1882, petitioner had lived agreeably with her; Wilks was working for him at the time, and living in his house Wilks was the first cause of their unhappiness. Petitioner was further examined by His Honor, and cross-examined by Mr Hutchinson, who then put the corespondent in the box w , with F. Willscroft, a brother of the respondent, deposed to petitioner and wife living a "cat and dog life," always falling out first about one thing, and then about another." Just prior to respondent leaving her husband, they had a row, in which he swore at her, and threatened to dash her brains out against the wall. The co-respondent left petitioner's employ a few days after Mrs Roberts left her home, but he did not induce her to leave, neither had improper relations existed between them up to that time. It was some considerable time subsequently before he commenced cohabitation with her. Though a labourer, he had maintained the woman and two of her children by her husband, and she had, with his knowledge, sent away clothes to another child. Counseland his Honor having addressed the jury, they retired about 1.30pm returning in an hour and twenty minutes with a verdict for petitioner, with damages against the co-respondent assessed at one shilling. ln answer to the foreman of the jury, His Honor said the co-respondent must bear the costs. A decree nisi was granted.
12. ↑ Source: #S1768 Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1690, 21 April 1886, Page 2 Page Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1690, 21 April 1886, Page 2 DIVORCE. ROBERTS V. ROBERTS AND JOHN WILKS ( CO-RESPONDENT.) Mr Baker appeared for the petitioner, and Mr Hutchison for co-respondent. The following jury were empanelled J. Windsor, A. Callaghan, T. Allen, J. Manley, S. Richards, P. Galvin, W. H. Nettleship, F. R. Parkes, E. Perry, J. Hatcher, and E Perritt. Mr Parkes was chosen Foreman. Mr Baker stated that the details were few, as the parties were living in open adultery. The petition set forth that the parties were married on the 24th June 1873, by the Rev. J. Law, at Wairarapa, by which marriage there had been issue three children that on the 5th of March, 1883, Catherine Lavinia Roberts left her husband, and since that time had lived in open adultery with the co-respondent. The questions to be submitted would be (1) Whether the adultery had been committed (2) Whether with any other person than the co-respondent; and (3) what damages, if any, was petitioner en- titled to. John Roberts, the husband, gave evidence as to the time his wife had left him, and her conduct since then. Mr Hutchison asked to be allowed to postpone the cross-examination, as there was no evidence of adultery against the co-respondent. His Honor agreed to this course. On looking at the marriage certificate His Honor said he did not consider it sufficient for the purposes of evidence, not bearing the Registrar-General's stamp. The clergyman's certificate was not sufficient. The law provides for one means of proof, and that must be given, unless witnesses of the marriage could be called. Mr Baker replied that he had a witness to prove the marriage. After hearing a quantity of evidence, both for and against, the jury were addressed by counsel and His Honor, and then retired to consider their verdict. On resuming at 2.30 the foreman of the jury came in to ask a question as to costs going against the co-respondent, to which His Honor replied that, in any case, the co-respondent would have to bear costs; A few minutes later the jury returned with a verdict for one shilling damages against the co-respondent. The decree nisi was granted.— Herald.
13. ↑ Source: #S1768 Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIX, Issue 11177, 21 April 1886, Page 2 Page Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIX, Issue 11177, 21 April 1886, Page 2 DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL, ROBERTS V. ROBERTS AND WILKS. Mr Baker appeared for the petitioner and Mr Hutchison for the co-respondent. The following jury were empanelled —J. Windsor, A. Halligan, T. Allen, J. Manley, S. Richards, J. McFarlane, P. Galvin, W. Nettleship, P. H. Parkes, K Perry, J. Hatcher, and E. Perrett. Mr F. H. Parkes was chosen foreman. The remaining jurors were then discharged from further attendance. Mr Baker opened the case by reading the petition, and stated that the petitioner wished to obtain the divorce on account of his wife committing adultery with J. Wilks. The respondent did not appear, but the co-respondent did, in answer to a claim against him for damages. The petition set forth that the parties were married on the 24th of June 1873, by the Rev. J. Law, at Wairarapa, by which marriage there had been issue of three children; that on the 5th of March, 1883, Catherine Lavinia Roberts left her husband, and since that time had lived in open adultery with the corespondent. The questions to be submitted would be (1) Whether the adultery had been commited (2) Whether with any other person than the corespondent and (3) what damages, if any, was petitioner entitled to. Mr Baker called the petitioner, J. H. Roberts, who deposed that he was a labourer residing at Palmerston. Was married in 1873 to Catherine L. Williscroft, at Woodside. Had in his possession a marriage certificate. Had three children by the marriage. Remembered March, 1883; was living at Makino then; came to Wanganui that month saw his wife in Wanganui. She left him in March, 1833, and had never returned to her home since. She took the youngest child away with her. Knew the co-respondent. Found his wife in a house at Wanganui; asked her what she intended to do; she said she did not care for him or the children. Asked her to return she said, I never will." She said she could not live with him on account of his always grumbling at her. Went and took a solicitor's advice. In consequence of something he heard, went to Bakertown, near Woodville, and saw his wife there. Went with a Mr W. Francis, of Woodville to a house occupied by the corespondent, Wilks, and saw his wife there, Mr Fraucis knocked at the door. Petitioner's wife came to the door. Mr Francis said, "Mrs Wilks, someone wants to see you," Petitioner then said, Good evening, Mrs Wilks." She said nothing. Up to the 5th of March, 1882, petitioner had lived agreeably with her. Wilks was working for him at the time, and living in his house. Wilks was the first cause of their unhappiness, Mr Hutchison asked to be allowed to postpone his cross-examination, as there was no evidence against the co-respondent. His Honor assented. His Honor asked to see the marriage certificate, and said that the document put in (a certificate signed by the officiating clergyman) was not legal proof, the law requiring a certificate from the Registrar-General. This being unproducable, Mr Baker obtained leave to prove the marriage by a witness who was present at the time, namely, F. Williscroft, a brother of the petitioner. Petitioner was further examined by His Honor, and cross examined by Mr Hutchison, who then put the co-respondent in the box who, with F. Williscroft deposed to petitioner and wife living a cat and dog life," always falling out first about one thing, and that about another," Just prior to respondent leaving her husband, they had a row, in which he swore at her, and threatened to dash her brains out against the wall. The co-respoudent left petitioner's employ a few days after Mrs Roberts left her home, but he did not induce her to leave, neither had improper relations existed between them up to that time. It was some considerable time subsequently before he commenced cohabitation with her. Though a labourer, he had maintained the woman and two of her children by her husband, and she had, with his knowledge, sent away clothes to another child. Counsel and His Honor having addressed the jury, they retired about 1.20 p.m., retuning in an hour and twenty minutes with a verdict for petitioner, with damages against tho co-respondent assessed at one shilling. In answer to the foreman of the jury, His Honor said the co-respondent must bear the costs- A decree nisi was granted.

• Source: S1739 bdm index TID 0 Footnote bdm index ShortFootnote bdm index Bibliography bdm index.
• Source: S1745 cemetry records TID 0 Footnote cemetry records ShortFootnote cemetry records Bibliography cemetry records.
• Source: S1748 census TID 0 Footnote census ShortFootnote census Bibliography census.
• Source: S1754 death certificate TID 0 Footnote death certificate ShortFootnote death certificate Bibliography death certificate.
• Source: S1782 Parish & Probate Records TID 0 Footnote Parish & Probate Records ShortFootnote Parish & Probate Records Bibliography Parish & Probate Records.
• Source: S1788 Probates TID 0 Footnote Probates ShortFootnote Probates Bibliography Probates.