Yes JA & AE had 9 children together and there has been much discussion, for many years, as to anomalies on his children’s original birth certificates. Over the years I have been able to obtain the copies of the originals for Josephine, Charles, Margaret, Patrick and Albert’s. But have failed to get the originals of their other 4 children. I do have a typed extract of all 4 but these do not have the vital information contained on the originals. These anomalies had me very intrigued so continued to dig deep to uncover the facts.
After many years of research and looking at facts I can assure all that JA did marry a Mary Ann Rayner in 1891. The mention of a Mary Ann Lake, as the mother of Josephine JA’s first child in 1894, and a marriage date of 29th of January 1890 raised my suspicions.
In 2019 I finally found a marriage certificate (below) between a Joseph Miller & Mary Ann Rayner. Yes, the man is named as Joseph Miller, and his occupation is a “cook” and they were married at Bethel House a church for mariners which JA was.
It could be any Joseph Miller, correct? Also note Mary Ann Rayner is a widow?
The above picture is of Reverend William Bradley who married JA & Mary Ann Rayner.
Margarets birth certificate(below) in 1898, JA & AE’s 3rd child, shows Mary Ann Blake/Lake as the mother and a marriage date of, guess what, 16th of January 1891.
Fast forward to 1913 and Albert’s birth certificate, JA & AE’s last child, shows a marriage date of you guessed it, 16th January 1891.
So, let’s put the facts in a chronological order and let a court case in 1903 where Mary Ann Rayner tries to sue JA for desertion to clear it all up.
JA marries a Mary Ann Rayner on the 16th of January 1891 she is a widow as per the marriage certificate.
After marrying Mary Ann, he finds out what his wife is really like. JA left her and sold everything, leaving Mary Ann with nothing. He puts an advertisement in the “Evening News” an early Sydney newspaper dated the 3rd of April 1893.
17th of January 1895 under the name of Mary Ann Miller she was fined for threatening to tear out the liver of Constable Williams.
24th of September 1897, under the name of Elizabeth Miller she was fined for using indecent language.
17th of December 1900 Mary Ann was fined in the name of Mrs. Miller for drunkenness by Constable Pauling or Constable Robins.
1902-1903 Charles Rayner is obviously alive as they are living at 30-32 Chambers St, Ultimo according to the Sands Directory with his wife Mary Ann Rayner, remember she was a widow on JA’s and her marriage certificate.
JA & AE are living and running a restaurant at 601 George St which is 4 doors back from the corner of Goulburn St. They already have 3 children, and AE is pregnant. In the Sands Directory the listing for this address is “Mrs. Millers Restuarant”
The rate assessment notices of 1905 also shows a Elizabeth Miller renting at 32 Chambers St and the landlord is Edward Croker. Number 32740 in RED. https://archives.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/nodes/view/1842195#idx2541423
1905-1906 Sands Directory has Charles Rayner living at 1 Middle St, Chippendale.
The next article from the “Truth” newspaper was on the 23rd of August 1903, 3 months prior to my grandfather’s Patrick Millers birth. For me it confirms and adds to the story of JA’s first wife Mary Ann.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/167892997?searchTerm=Miller%20Missus
For those that have trouble reading the original I have transcribed it for you
“MILLER’S MISSUS
Impudence and Hard Swearing
Martyr(?) Mrs Miller
Mrs Miller Denies Unchastity, but Her Husband Accuses Her of Adultery
When a decent woman is deserted by the man that had sworn to love her and to cherish her, she has everybody’s sympathy, and the law provides for her a legal remedy by means of which she can compel her wife-deserting husband to support her. Unfortunately, however, not all women are like the woman whom we have just referred. Some of them are DRUKEN, RIOTOUS REPROBATES and in addition, adulterers.
An instance of this depravity, bare-faced impudence, and contempt for the solemnity of an oath that characteries some women was given before Mr Donaldson, SM, last Wednesday, on which day, in the Summons Division of the Police Court Mary Ann Elizabeth Miller sued her husband for maintenance. The husband is a man of colour and is, it appears, the proprietor of a 4d Restaurant IN GEORGE STREET, near Goulburn Street.
His wife is a gross and corpulent woman who, though posing as an injured innocent, is declared by her husband and her landlord TO BE AN ADULTERESS.
Mrs. Miller was rendered the legal assistance of Mr. Sidney Stewart, and the husband was represented by Mr. J. W. Abigail.
The complainant swore that she was a married woman living apart from her husband, her present address being 1 Middle-street, Chippendale. She had been living apart from her husband for about 13 years. She had, in fact, been UNAWARE OF HIS WHEREABOUTS until about 12 months ago. He had, she declared, got a bill of sale over the ‘things’ 13 years ago, and then left her. One day, about 12 months ago, she was in George-street, near Goulburn Street, when she saw the name ‘MRS. MILLER’ OVER A DOOR, and she discovered that this was the residence of her husband.
She then wrote to him asking for help, and the result was that he gave her £1, but had not given her anything since. She asked for £1 which he was, she declared, well able to pay He was, said she, living with a woman, who had borne him three children and was going to have another.
It was when this amiable and sweet witness was cross-examined that she appeared, at first, to be
AN ABSOLUTE MARTYR.
In answer to Mr. J. W. Abigail, she declared that her husband had never caught her in bed with a man named Harry York. Although it was true that she kept a boarding-house, the boarder therein, one Raymond, was not known as husband. She had never been convicted of drunkenness, and, In fact, had never been charged with any offences at any court. Her answers were given with so much indignation and so emphatically that Mr. Stewart implored the witness NOT TO’ GET EXCITED. ‘It’s enough to make her excited if there’s no truth in these charges,” said Mr. Abigail.
The attorney for the defendant then informed his Worship that he had every confidence in his client’s story and would therefore ask for an adjournment in order to call fresh evidence. He would, he said, at once throw up his brief if he did not BELIEVE HIS CLIENT’S STORY. Mr. Donaldson said that he had no doubt he would, and he granted an adjournment until Friday.
On Friday Mrs. Miller denied that she was convicted for drunkenness on December 17, 1900; denied that she was ever arrested by Constable Pauling or Constable Robins and fined. She was not convicted under the name of Mary Ann Miller on January 17, 1895, she said and fined. She had never threatened to tear out the liver of Constable Williams. She had never ADMITTED COMMITTING ADULTERY with ‘Bob the baker.’ She had lived at 30 Chambers-street, Ultimo. It was a four-roomed house. Charles Raymond boarded there. (A man was here put out of court.)
The man, MacDonald, just put out of court had boarded with her. There were two bedrooms in the Chambers-street house. The rent receipts were given in Raymond’s name. She had never committed adultery with Raymond. She was not fined on September 24, 1897, under the name of Elizabeth Miller, for USING INDECENT LANGUAGE.
She was summoned and fined on that date.
Edward Croker, a property owner, said that complainant occupied one of his houses with a man named Rayner. The rent was paid In Rayner’s name. The two appeared to be man and wife. Witness had often been through the house and had seen only one bed in it.
Here we have the woman admitting herself that she had been fined, although she had sworn that she had never been before a Court. His Worship was quite satisfied that she had no locus standi, and he therefore dismissed the case.”
THE ABOVE ARTICLE WE CAN NOW UNDERSTAND WITH FACTS WE ALREADY KNOW
The fact that Mary Ann lied and said she was a widow when marrying JA, as per their marriage certificate, and was still married and living with her husband as Edward Croker stated “The rent was paid In Rayner’s name. The two appeared to be man and wife. Witness had often been through the house and had seen only one bed in it.”
I have found many entries in the Sand directory showing a Charles Rayner living at the address’s Mary told the court she was living at.
My thoughts are that JA did not marry AE until 1927 as he was a religious & honest man and still married. He waited till his wife had passed as noted on his marriage certificate to AE as he is now a “WIDOW”.
Joseph Alexander Miller 1854-1939 