The RUDD Sisters
Father Thomas RUDD b.c. 18091 m. (1) 1846 (2) 1850 d. 18672
Step-father Thomas BRADLEY b.c. 18093 m. (1) bef. 1843 (2) none d. 18744
Step-mother Emily NYE b. 18305 m. 18466 d. 18497
Mother Catherine McNALLY aka KELLY b.c. 1838 m. 18508 d. 18749
Step-sister Myrah Ann NYE b.c. 1844 m. 185910 James WHITNEY d. 188111
Half-sister Margaret E. RUDD b. 184712 m. none - d. 186313
Half-brother Thomas James RUDD b. 184814 m. 187015 Mary McCARTHY d. 192316
Half-brother John Joseph RUDD b. 184917 m. 187418 Alice COSTELLO19 aka Ann20 d. 192421
Sister Mary RUDD b. 185122 m. (1) 186723 (2) 187324 (1) John APPELSTON (2) William Stanley HARTLEY d. 188125
Inmate Eliza aka Elizabeth RUDD b. 185326 m. unknown (see below) d. aft. 1870
Inmate Catherine RUDD b.c. 185527 m. (1) none (2) 1874 (3) 1899 (4) 1907 (see below) d. 192428
Brother James RUDD b. 185729 m. 188330 Margaret aka Martha COSTELLO d. 190831
Sister Maria RUDD b. 185932 m. none - d. 185933
Sister Biddy (Bridginia M.) RUDD b. 186534 m. (1) 189335 (2) 190536 (3) 192737 (1) Louis FAIRBANK (2) George H. WHITEMAN (3) Edward O'CONNOR d. aft. 1927
Sister Jane RUDD b. 186938 m. d.
Description
Relationship Name Age Height Hair Eyes Complexion Build Distinguishing features
Father Thomas39 24 5' 4¼" brown hazel ruddy moon; R K L P J B on right arm; J Rudd J Rudd[?]; lighthouse; J wood[?] and other marks on left
Mother Catherine40 35 5' 3½" dark dark fresh medium medium nose, chin and mouth
Inmate Eliza41 17 reddish dark brown & piercing face greatly freckled thin, gaunt bad chest; slightly stooped; most likely extremely dirty
Inmate Catherine42 27 5' 2" dark brown dark hazel fresh medium medium nose, chin and mouth
Brother James43 45 5' 8" dark dark medium

After an earlier incident at Braidwood, that has been outlined below, Catherine RUDD and her mother, also named Catherine, were arrested by sergeant LENTALL and constable COADY in the Cooma Market-square in August 1868 and were placed in the local lock-up. Catherine senior was charged with being an idle and disorderly character and after visiting the family’s camping spot a short distance from Cooma, police discovered the other children of the family. As a result of this incident three of the RUDD children, Catherine, Eliza, and James, were arrested for protection.44 They appeared in Cooma Court before the Police Magistrate, R. DAWSON, on 25 August 1868,45 where they were charged with living with a reputed prostitute and a vagrant – their mother. The article describing their arrest appeared in many state and national newspapers and was entitled A Deplorable Picture of a Family in the Bush. A copy had also been stored within the CSIL letters referring to Eliza.46 As a result of this appearance the court sent James RUDD onto the Vernon and the two sisters, Catherine and Eliza, were sent to the Industrial School at Newcastle, arriving on 6 September 1868. A fortnight after their admission KING wrote to the Colonial Secretary requesting confirmation about their religion. KING stated that Catherine and Eliza:

… are very ignorant according to their own statement, they have never been to school or church, they have heard their father was a Protestant but can give no reliable account of their Religion. Under these circumstances I await the decision of the Honble the Colonial Secretary as to their religious instruction.

As a result of this communication, the knowledge of the Cooma Police Magistrate was sought by the Colonial Secretary and he responded:

Nothing being known of the family in this neighbourhood I caused enquiry to be made at Goulburn Gaol where the mother of the girls is at present confined. She states that her children are Roman Catholics.47

Of the two sisters admitted to Newcastle, only Catherine transferred with the school to Biloela in May 1871 as Eliza had been apprenticed before this date. While Eliza did eventually reach Cockatoo Island to join her sister and the rest of the Newcastle inmates, this was due to a further arrest and admission under the Act.

Family

James, Catherine and Eliza were three of the seven children of the widower Thomas RUDD and his second wife Catherine McNALLY who had married in the Catholic church in Berrima in 1850. Thomas had earlier been married to Emily NYE who had died. Six of the children born to Thomas and Catherine have been either registered or baptised. On the NSW BDM Index Eliza's 1853 baptism was recorded as Elizabeth RUDD48 and James' birth was registered in 1857. No baptism record or birth registration has been found for Catherine as her age does not match the record of the birth in 1861.49 Some descendants attribute other children to Catherine and Thomas and the limitations of their research has been considered below.

Details recorded in the admissions to the industrial schools of Newcastle and the Vernon for the three RUDD children admitted, identified clearly that their father Thomas, had died by 1868 and some event of significance had occurred to the family to place them in such a precarious position. Thomas wasn't named in the Newcastle Entrance Book and the notation 'dead' was recorded beside the word father. On James RUDD’s admission to the Vernon, just days before the admission of his sisters to Newcastle, James named his father and wrote of him in the past tense stating:

[That Thomas] … had teams on the road between Sydney and Cooma. Mother got drunk sometimes. We lived in a tent just out of Cooma men from Cooma used to come to the tent and give my mother money. My two sisters and I were taken by the police sisters went to Newcastle mother came with us as far as Goulburn.50

There was no reason for any of the children to lie to the authorities in this case.51 Many online trees state that Thomas died in 1873 but no verification of his death has been found in either the NSW BDM Index or in any newspaper articles. In light of the statements made by his children in 1868, it is believed that Thomas died in 1867 and his death was registered in Yass. This date is significant as it calls into question the paternity of the youngest child attributed to him.

The one newspaper report of the incident where the RUDD children were arrested does suggest that Thomas was involved in a larceny and that he was was in goal just prior to the arrests of his wife and children at Cooma. The Queanbeyan Age on 29 August 1868, reprinted an article from the Wagga Wagga Express 'from Monday last',52 that referred to an incident of cattle stealing.53 When the children appeared before a Police Magistrate on or about 24 August 1868, they were described as:

Five young children, the eldest scarcely nine years of age, were brought up at the police court for protection. The miserable little creatures dirty, half clad, half-starved, and wholly untended and uncared for, looked more like the offspring of savages than the children of European parents. The position of these children is a painful one indeed. … Fitter subjects for the discipline of an industrial school could scarcely be discovered. With proper training and education they may become useful members of society.

Although the family was unnamed in the article, there is little doubt that the report refers to the RUDD family as details match and more significantly, no other families with children admitted to the industrial schools from this area at this time exist. It is unclear who the younger RUDD children were at the time of Catherine's arrest, imprisonment and the loss of their Cooma residence, as the existence of only a three-year-old was reported in the papers. This child was almost certainly Biddy who had been born in 1865, as Jane had yet to be born so only four of the five stated children are known. They were James, Eliza, Catherine and Biddy. The other child is still unidentified. Maria had likely died in 1859 and Mary had married. There are however errors within the report that are not supported by other contemporary records so this may be another such error. The article went on to discuss the RUDD parents although the man identified as their father cannot have been Thomas as by this date there is no doubt that Thomas had died.

Their father is now undergoing a sentence of five years' imprisonment for cattle-stealing, and their mother and an elder brother are also in custody, though they have not yet been committed, on a charge of stealing blankets from the dray of a hawker. In the meantime the children have been left as their miserable habitation with no one but a young brother of some thirteen or fourteen years of age to provide for them; and when the police called there with the van for the purpose of taking them to the lockup for protection, they had not a morsel of food in the place. When the father was surprised by the police in the act of skinning the beast, for stealing which he is now undergoing his sentence, it will be remembered that in his illegal occupation he was being assisted by his elder children, and was afterwards by them vigorously aided in resisting and, for the time, making good his escape from the police upon their endeavouring to capture him; and while this struggle

was going on, or immediately afterwards, it will be remembered that the brand, which the police had recognised, was deftly cut out of the hide of the stolen beast and destroyed by, there is every reason to believe, the younger children. It is dangerous to the interests of society to permit these young children to grow up in ignorance and vice and exposed to all the temptations and bad examples of a home such as theirs. They are already, it is to be feared, but too well familiarised with crime, and for their own good and the safety of society it is necessary that their guardianship should be undertaken by the State.

The identity of the carer is uncertain but it may have been the twelve-year-old James who was eventually to be admitted to the Vernon. The mother was Catherine but whether James was also the older brother cannot be certain. Where Catherine's step-children were at the time of this arrest is also uncertain so this article may refer to one of the children of Emily NYE. The imprisoned 'father' however was not Thomas RUDD as there are no gaol admissions for a man with this name for this crime at this time. The older 'brother' was almost certainly a daughter of the man arrested for killing the beast.

The man described as the 'father' in the reports is erroneously identified in other articles as James BRADLEY.54 The NSW Police Gazette55 and Goulburn Goal records clearly identify that the person tried in Braidwood and gaoled for cattle stealing and sentenced to three years gaol at Braidwood Quarter Sessions on 11 August 1868, was Thomas BRADLEY.56 The older 'son' was almost without doubt Thomas BRADLEY's daughter57 Jane, who appeared with her father in the Goulburn Gaol admissions and who had been sentenced to two years gaol for the same crime.58 The pair were admitted to Goulburn Gaol on 20 August, before Catherine RUDD and her children arrived in the town. Jane was recorded as CONNELL and Jane BRADLEY had married Thomas O'CONNELL in 1856.59 Goulburn Gaol records identified that Thomas and his daughter Jane BRADLEY, had arrived on the Champion in 1842 and both had been born in Cumberland, England. The Champion indent confirmed the name and details of Thomas BRADLEY, his wife and family, and included his two-year-old daughter Jane.60 Those arrested during 1868 were therefore members of both the RUDD and BRADLEY families, further supporting that Thomas RUDD was dead. It is believed that Thomas BRADLEY was a de facto partner of Catherine RUDD although it is also possible that he was simply providing some type of shelter and protection for Catherine and her children. He may possibly have been the father of Jane RUDD. Only DNA will confirm family bloodlines.

It may be that after her arrest in association with the cattle stealing, Catherine RUDD was released to care for her younger children and moved from BRADLEY's property, only to be re-arrested for vagrancy and prostitution at Cooma. Only her three older children were arrested at the same time. The girls were sent to Newcastle and their brother sent to the Vernon.

Catherine was identified in the Newcastle Entrance Book that also confirmed that she was in gaol charged with being an idle and disorderly character. Catherine McANNALLY was Thomas RUDD's second wife. Her maiden surname has been variously recorded as McANNALLY and its many variations, but also as KELLY on at least one record pertaining to the family. Newspaper articles described Catherine as being 'strong and able' and about thirty. It is uncertain what, if any, stress had been placed on the family to have put Catherine in the difficult situation where three of her children were taken from her but it is believed to have been Thomas's death as his absence, for whatever reason, was almost without doubt the catalyst for her destitution and the likely choice of prostitution to support her family. While she was initially sentenced to three months in the Cooma courts, a transfer from Cooma Gaol to Goulburn Gaol was arranged on 27 August 1868.61 Goulburn Gaol records identified that Catherine was a Catholic born in County Cavan. No age was recorded on her 1868 gaol admission but she stated that she had arrived in 1850 aboard the Lady Digby.62 No ship of this name has been identified in the SRNSW immigration records but it is possible that this reference identified an arrival aboard the Digby on 9 April 1849, although no appropriate woman can be located on the indent of the Digby. The closest match aboard appears to be a Catherine McNEILL.63 Catherine's death at the age of forty-four was registered in Goulburn eight years after her admission to gaol. She was described in the Maitland Mercury as 'an old woman' who had died in her bed at Spring Valley near Collector near Goulburn on 19 May 1874.64 There was an inquest held in Goulburn.65 Descendants have identified that she was buried at Collector. Only her death registration will identify the informant and may perhaps confirm the names of her children.

RUDD family researchers have identified that Thomas RUDD had been transported in 1831 for fourteen years aboard the Camden. The age and name of the convict on this ship does match what is known of Thomas RUDD. His original assignment straight off the ship, the free by servitude statement made at the time of his first marriage confirmed that he had been transported and the location on his ticket of leave, altered to Berrima, places him in the area known to have been frequented by the RUDD family. This ship of arrival has therefore been attributed to him. The Camden indent recorded that Thomas had been born in Yarmouth, Norfolk, England, and had been assigned to the Goulburn Plains after his arrival.66 Some descendants have erroneously stated that Thomas's ship of arrival was identified on the Permission to Marry for Emily NYE on 20 May 1846. Thomas (X) RUDD made his first marriage by Banns to Emily NYE67 at All Saints Church, Camden. No Permission to Marry record has been located for this marriage and the marriage record indicated that none would have been needed as Thomas was free by servitude and Emily was free by birth. Thomas and Emily had three children – Margaret, Thomas and John – and Thomas became step-father to Emily's daughter, Myrah aka Mariah, who had been born in 1844. Emily died at the age of 19 on 17 April 1849 and was buried in the Church of England Cemetery at All Saint's Church at Sutton Forest in the same grave as a 15-year-old Ann Stewart. A headstone remains.68

Thomas RUDD died in Yass in 1867.69 The parents on this registration were not recorded and no age appears on the NSW BDM Index. This death year was confirmed during Catherine's inquest in 1874, when evidence was given that she had been a widow for seven years.70 Some trees do attribute this death to him. In 1868 James RUDD identified that his father worked as a carter who had 'teams on the road between Sydney and Cooma' but whose work may well have taken him to the nearby Yass area. In March 1866 The Goulburn Herald and Chronicle reprinted an article from the Monaro Mercury.

ESCAPE FROM THE LOCK-UP, COOMA.
On Tuesday evening, about seven o'clock, a man named Rudd, a confine for debt in Cooma prison, and who had been allowed some freedom in consequence of failing health, walked off from Cooma gaol, and has not since been heard of. The man must have been suffering from madness at the time, and may probably have destroyed himself, as he was a helpless creature; his unhappy wife and children are being at present supported by the authorities in Cooma.71

This article almost certainly identified the initial stressors on the RUDD family - Thomas' age and health and the consideration that he was not earning sufficient money to support his family. Thomas died the following year. Find a Grave identified that this Thomas RUDD was buried in the Catholic Cemetery at Gunning, an area very close to Collector. No image of a headstone has been found. Gunning is a good location at an appropriate time for Thomas RUDD although it is uncertain whether this information came from a primary source or from a family contribution some years after the event.72

There was more than one Thomas RUDD in this part of NSW at this time and those researchers who have identified that Thomas died in Camden at the age of sixty-five in 1873 have confused two men with the same name. Thomas RUDD married at Sutton Forest and it is clear from baptisms of his children that he remained approximately in the area of Braidwood, Berrima, Collector and Goulburn after he married. He was not recorded in the the area around Camden and Menangle – even though these areas are relatively close. The mother of this man was identified as Johanna on the NSW BDM Index and it is important to note that Johanna was not a name used within this RUDD family and that it was the name of the wife of the Thomas RUDD who lived in Camden. It is not certain whether any descendants have viewed the actual 1873 death registration that they attribute to Thomas but there is enough evidence available from contemporary references and newspaper articles to be certain that this date of death for the father of the industrial school admissions is incorrect.

Online trees are not helpful in tracing Thomas and Catherine's children in order to potentially locate Eliza, the missing industrial school admission. Many errors appear in trees suggesting that few registrations for the RUDD family have been viewed. In addition to Catherine who is confirmed as a daughter in industrial school records, two other children, Christiana and Rosanna Matilda, have been inexplicantly attributed to Thomas and Catherine by some family researchers. The baptisms of these girls clearly identified parents named Thomas and Sophia. Many other registrations for this couple were made in the Campbelltown area so these girls cannot be children of Thomas and Catherine. Other trees identify that Margaret RUDD married a John BOLLARD and died in Campbelltown in 1895. Death registrations attached to this person actually identify that this woman's parents were John RUDD and Ann MALONEY. Catherine RUDD, the Newcastle admission's death, is frequently identified as May 1896 in the Newcastle area. Descendants of the PERCIVAL family have purchased the registrations and this researcher has purchased others so there is no doubt of Catherine's actual death date. The same problem has also occurred with Eliza and the youngest child Jane. Both these women supposedly died in 1926 - Eliza in Hurstville and Jane in Kurri Kurri. There is no evidence of a married name so evidence and an exact date from the NSW BDM Index or a report in Trove newspapers can be investigated. These errors and omissions then call into question every other piece of research provided on the trees.

Ultimately many of Thomas and Catherine's children scattered throughout NSW making tracing the missing siblings through family notices difficult. Some remained in or returned to the Berrima/Goulburn area. It is uncertain if, and considered unlikely whether, Thomas' children with Emily NYE were cared for by Catherine. By February 1868, just prior to the arrest of Catherine and her children, the younger Thomas RUDD was working in Goulburn73 suggesting that they were cared for elsewhere and were not involved with Catherine and her arrest.

In October 1899, James RUDD was very likely to have been the forty-five-year-old farm labourer for whom a warrant for child desertion was issued by the Moss Vale Bench74 and who was thought to have gone to Bungendore or Collector. Thomas and John settled in the Collector and Currawang area south-west of Goulburn, some distance from the initial arrest location of Cooma. Thomas RUDD and James RUDD were buried in the Currawang Hermitage Cemetery but no other siblings have been verified in cemeteries in the Goulburn district.75

Note Thomas RUDD does not appear to be directly connected to the family of the former Prime Minister of Australia but compelling similarities between the two RUDD families do exist.

Catherine RUDD

Name Variations Catharine, Kate, Charlotte
Husband (1) unknown b. m. none d. unknown
Husband (2) William PERCIVAL b. 184576 m. 187477 d. 189778
Husband (3) John SCHWAN b. 182879 m. 189980 d. 190481
Husband (4) William JOHNSON b. m. 190782 d.
Daughter unnamed female b. 1873 m. none - d. 1873
Son James Henry PERCIVALL b. 187583 m. 190584 Edith G. ADAMS d. 194485
Son William PERCIVALL b.c. 187786 m. (1) 190687 (2) 192588 (1) Annie CUSKELLY (2) Ivy BREDENBECK d. 196289
Daughter Mary A. PERCIVAL b. 188190 m. none - d. 188291
Daughter Charlotte Maud PERCIVAL b. 188392 m. 190693 Robert BROWN d.94
Daughter Lydia PERCIVAL b. 188595 m. none - d. 188596
Daughter Victoria M. PERCIVAL b. 188797 m. d.

Admission details in the Newcastle Industrial School Entrance Book identified that Catherine had been born in about 1855. Her birth was not registered. Birth locations for other members of her family suggest that she had probably been born in the Goulburn/Berrima area rather than the Campbelltown/Menangle area. While her birth appears to have been recorded on the NSW BDM Index in Camden in 1861, this entry appeared twice with the same registration number98 – once with parents Thomas and Catherine RUDD and once with parents Thomas and Johanna RUDD. Apart from the six-year difference in age, the Camden area was not the area known to be frequented by Thomas and Catherine RUDD and because this registration can only refer to one girl, it is considered very likely that it refers to a Catherine RUDD who was about six years younger than the admission age of the Newcastle girl. There is therefore little doubt that the registration in 1861 is that of the daughter of Thomas and Johanna RUDD and not the girl admitted to Newcastle. This NSW BDM Index reference has perpetuated many inconsistencies in research by the descendants of both RUDD families. The original birth registration has not been viewed as it is not connected with the Newcastle admission but it is unknown whether the record has been viewed by family researchers either. Only the actual record – rather than the index – will identify how this inconsistency occurred and whether there is an error on the index or in the register itself.

At the time of her admission to Newcastle, Catherine was recorded as a twelve-year-old Catholic.99 She could read the alphabet and write on slate. Catherine transferred to Biloela on Cockatoo Island in May 1871 and was recorded by LUCAS in a letter to the Colonial Secretary on 23 June 1871, as eligible for service.100 While no record of misbehaviour has been found while Catherine was in Newcastle, she was not always well-behaved on Biloela. LUCAS, in his report of 9 October 1871, recorded that she had been released from confinement on 3 October after she had been locked up after breaking through the fence and going beyond the enclosure.101

As Kate RUDD, she was apprenticed to Mr and Mrs RODGERS of Glen Elgin, New England, on 20 January 1872.102 The Entrance Book only provided the year '1872' and it is clear that this notation is correct as RODGERS in a letter to the Colonial Secretary indicated that Kate had been at Glen Elgin well before November 1872.103 On 4 August 1873, Kate delivered an illegitimate daughter at Glen Elgin. The SMH and Maitland Mercury reported that:

On Wednesday Sergeant Walker and Constable White were at the station, and upon enquiry I ascertained why the inmates of Mr. Rodgers' house were in such a state of excitement. It appears that Mr. Rodgers was away at his station at Newton Boyd on Monday, and came home near dark, when he was astonished by learning that a newly born female infant had been found dead, in a bag which was placed in a box in the servant's room. Information was immediately sent to the police; hence their visit. There were no marks of violence found on the body, consequently it was buried by the police. The mother of the infant, whose name is Kate Rudd, is one of the Biloela girls, and was well recommended to Mr. R. She is said to be very well connected. Everyone in the house was very kind to her, and tried to encourage the poor unfortunate to do right. The child must have been born on Sunday night, for the girl was so very ill on Monday that on various occasions she was sent to bed. Mr Rodgers's mother happened to hear of the girl's illness, when she came over, and insisted upon the girl's room being searched, which resulted in the dead infant being found. Mrs. Rodgers was away from home at the time. The cause of the girl's trouble is far away from here; he is a person with whom she was acquainted in Sydney. This she confessed when asked. Those who are the cause of such sad occurrences should be severely punished. It would appear there is no doubt the child would have lived had there not been a desire on the girl's part to conceal the circumstance. Had she mentioned her condition, everything possibly required would have been prepared. The girl goes into town tomorrow, when she will be remanded probably till Tuesday. There is no suspicion of foul play.104

Catherine was subsequently arrested by constable WHITE of Glen Innes police105 and was sentenced to appear at the next Circuit Court.106 On 12 August 1873, Alex RODGERS wrote to the Colonial Secretary about the incident. He stated:107

With feelings of greatest regret for haveing brought the girl Catharine Rudd into my family – It is my duty to write to you that she has on the 4th Inst. given birth to a child which was found dead in her bedroom. She persistently denied her state to the ladies in the house – no care has been spared to look after her – a stranger who came to the station last November while I was in Sydney she states is the author of her misery She will have to undergo a magisterial enquiry on next Friday the 14th Inst for concealing the birth of the infant. Whatever the result may be I cannot take her back into my family. In case of her acquital which is not improbable – Will I have her sent back to Sydney? or will she be set free to seek her living? I am terribly annoyed about this sad occurence.
Mrs Rodgers has been from home the last four months for medical aid otherwise this would not have arrived at so bad an end. as it is there is double injury done, I would not think the girl was so insensible to kindness With the greatest regrets to have to write to you on such a disgraceful subject.108

Catherine appeared at the Police Court at Glen Innes on 15 August where it was stated:

Catherine Rudd appeared on the charge of having, at Glen Elgin, on the 4th Aug. instant, unlawfully concealed the birth of her female child, by placing it in a bag, and putting the bag with the child in a box. Mr. Kearney appeared for prisoner, and after the evidence of several witnesses had been taken he made a long and eloquent speech on behalf of the prisoner, reviewing the evidence of the various witnesses, and endeavouring to show that had the girl wished to conceal the body of her child she would have placed it in a piano case which was in the same room as the other case was found in. Most of the witnesses admitted that the place chosen for concealment was not a good place, and some stated that they did not consider the prisoner had endeavoured to conceal the birth at all. On the other hand, Mr. Mitchell, who examined Miss Clark on behalf of the prosecution, elicited from her that prisoner had persistently denied her condition prior to the birth of the child, and that her suspicions having been aroused by the illness of accused she had searched her room, and after about 10 minutes had discovered the child in a bag in a case placed on the top of a piano case. Witness was of opinion that prisoner had secretly placed the child there, from the appearance of the bundle. Prisoner was committed for trial at the Armidale Circuit Court to be held on 9th Oct.109

As predicted by RODGERS, at Armidale Circuit Court Kate pleaded not guilty and was acquitted.110 No justification for the reference in the newspaper report that stated 'She is said to be very well connected' has been found in the CSIL and it would be very interesting to uncover anything that might suggest the reasoning behind this statement.

After leaving the employment of RODGERS Kate remained in the New England area. As Charlotte RUDD she married William PERCIVAL in the Wesleyan Church, Armidale, on 26 November 1874. Catherine stated that she had been born in Goulburn, that her father was Thomas RUDD and that her mother was Katherine KELLY. William had been born in Northampton, England. His father was James PERCIVAL and his mother was Charlotte BIRD. The witnesses were Rosina RIFSTNGER and Matthew GIRLE.111 Children were subsequently registered to William and Catherine aka Catherine Charlotte PERCIVAL in the Armidale and Tamworth areas. While it may be an administrative error that caused Catherine's name at the time she married to be recorded as the same name as William's mother, it is equally likely that Catherine assumed the given name, Charlotte, in order to hide from any memory of her relatively recent trial for infanticide. In 1884, at the age of 27, Catherine PERCEVAL was admitted to Armidale Gaol where she was described as a 27-year-old Catholic laundress. One female child entered the gaol with her. Catherine had been tried on 29 January 1884, for being drunk and disorderly.112 William's death was registered in Liverpool in 1897. His parents were confirmed on the NSW BDM Index but it is unknown why he was so far from Armidale and whether Catherine was with him when he died.

On 25 October 1899, Catherine RUDD, recorded as a widow, married John SCHWAN in St Mary's Catholic Cathedral, Armidale. Again Catherine stated that she had been born in Goulburn in about 1858 and that her parents were the farmer, Thomas RUDD, who was deceased, and Catherine KELLY. Both Kate and John were from Mitchell's Flat and John was a miner who had been born in Sauerthal, Germany. The couple had no children. The best identification of the location of Mitchell or Mitchell's Flat is north-west of Armidale on Dumaresq Creek. John SCHWAN took John CLARKE to court in 1878 for injuring his property at Mitchell's Flat through carelessness with fire.113 As J. SCHWANN, John was almost certainly the man who sold his property near Armidale in August 1891.114 His advertisement read:

Comfortable farm and house – J. Schwann well known selection for Auction about one mile from Dumaresq Railway Station.

John appeared with two females on the 1891 census at Sandon but was alone on the 1901 census on Dumaresq Station, Sandon, near Armidale, two years after he married Catherine. He died in 1904 while he was collecting firewood. Newspapers described him as an old age pensioner.115 The NSW BDM Index indicated that his parents were John and Matilda. Because he had children also in the local area it is thought that one of these was likely to have provided the details of his parents.

In the Bishop's House, Armidale, on 7 March 1907, as Catherine RODD, Catherine married William JOHNSON. The marriage record again confirmed her place of birth and the names of her parents who were both recorded as deceased. There were no children of this marriage and it is not certain that it continued as a month after the marriage William had placed an advertisement in the local papers refusing to be responsible for debts contracted by Catherine JOHNSON nee RODD.116 Catherine's obituary suggested that at about this time she moved to Barraba117 and the apparently deliberate misspelling of her surname possibly suggests that she was unaware that John SCHWANN had died when she married William JOHNSON.

Catherine died in Armidale on 10 April 1924, at the recorded age of 67 and was buried in the Church of England Cemetery, Armidale.118 Her death registration indicated that she had three children still living – James, William and Maud – but one son and two daughters had pre-deceased her. Both her parents were confirmed on the death registration.

Note 1: Many online trees identify that Catherine died in Newcastle or Adamstown in 1898. The trees have no reference and identify no married surname. Who they think they have identified is therefore unknown and researchers clearly have not purchased the death registration that they claim belongs to Catherine.

^^Note 2: Some online trees state that in 1877, in Campbelltown, Catherine married Charles JONES, the son of William JONES and Sarah RUDD.119 This woman was not the child of Thomas and Catherine RUDD nee McNALLY aka McANALLY aka KELLY as this marriage referred to the daughter of Thomas and Johanna RUDD nee LYSAGHT whose birth was registered in 1861 in Camden. The Voice of the North on 10 January 1929, published a history of the families of early Menangle. The ancestry outlined in this article concerning the JONES connection has been reproduced below to try to untangle the misinformation recorded in online trees.

Mr. William Jones (1), the founder of the Menangle branch of the family was born on Camden Park Estate in the very earliest days of that historic settlement. I think it would be quite safe to assert that he was one of the first white children born in the vicinity of Camden. He was amongst the first batch of farmers placed on the land by John MacArthur. He married Miss Sarah Rudd, of Campbelltown, and the members of his family comprised: William (2), John (1), Thomas (1), Isaac (1), James (1), Henry, Charles and Joseph. … John Jones was a carpenter and wheelwright and carried on business in premises immediately adjoining the residence of his father. He married Miss Margaret Teresa Botton,120 who died at the very early age of 21 years, on May 24th, 1868, leaving a family of four sons, viz., John (2), William (4), Richard (1), and James (2). Their names will be found on the roll call of the old village school in the mid-seventies. William (4) was living at Parramatta in the early eighties. Richard Jones died at Bourke in very early manhood. John (2) migrated to Burrenjuck and has been resident there since the commencement of that great irrigation scheme. James was a blacksmith, and carried on business in Campbelltown in recent years. Mr. John Jones (1) died in 1903 at the age of 67 years. Mr. Isaac Jones (1) died at Liverpool a few years ago. Mr. Thomas Jones (1) is still living, and resides at Summerhill. Mr. James Jones (1) married Miss Sarah Rudd, daughter of Mr. Thomas Rudd, who resided about two miles south of Campbelltown, and he conducted a small farm in the area immediately south of the paternal home. The members of his family were James, Alfred, Denis, Robert, Charles and Sylvester, and of these sons only Alfred, Denis and Charles are living. Mr. Alfred Jones resides in Menangle, and was for many years a member of the staff of Messrs. Hickey Bros. Mr. Henry Jones married Miss Catherine Dillon, and had a family of five, viz., William, Thomas, Annie, Mary and Ada. Mr. Charles Jones (1) married Miss Catherine Rudd (sister of Mrs. James Jones). He died on June 12th, 1883, aged 27 years. His widow subsequently removed to Sydney and for many years resided in Redfern. Mr. Joseph Jones married Miss Elizabeth Brennan and his family consisted of one son (George) and three daughters.121^^

Note 3: The birth of the child Henry PARKES122 at Bombala whose parents were recorded on the NSW BDM Index as William and Catherine appeared in the coroner's inquests as an illegitimate birth to Catherine RUDD.123 Catherine was reported to be a widow in the local newspapers.124 The inquest performed on 25 May 1873, outlined Henry's ancestry. While it is hard to imagine that this is not a child of the girl admitted to Newcastle, it cannot be, but it does indicate another woman of this name and living in the same area where Catherine’s sister, Mary, was known to have settled. The Bombala area was also close to Catherine's initial place of arrest. Could this mother possibly be Eliza?

Eliza RUDD

Name Variations Elizabeth
Husband b. m. d.

Eliza was named in the newspaper reports at the time of her family's arrest. The national newspapers outlined the situation in which the family was living.

The officers found a miserably constructed shelter composed of rags and boughs, seated outside of which was the eldest girl, Eliza RUDD, comfortably enjoying a pipe of tobacco, a child about three years of age125 in a shocking state of filth, lying on the ground close by; within the hut, if it could be so called, they discovered the boy, James RUDD, and to judge from his appearance, soap and water or any cleansing process was an utter stranger to him, and had been so for a considerable time past. The children, together with what few articles of clothing that could be seen, were taken to the lock-up. The case of the children formed the first committal in Cooma under the Industrial Schools Act.

Eliza was recorded in the Newcastle Entrance Book as a fourteen-year-old when she was admitted. She could read the alphabet and write on slate.126 She had been born on 6 November 1853, and was baptised as Elizabeth RUDD on 8 January 1854. The baptism record was Catholic and occurred in the Berrima district of County Camden. Both Eliza's parents were confirmed on this record and Catherine's maiden name was recorded in the record as McNALLY.127 It is almost certain that there was only one daughter in the family named Eliza or Elizabeth as the ages of these two similarly named girls match.

Nothing can be found about Eliza's time in Newcastle until November 1868 when she spent in excess of a week in the hospital within the school for an unidentified complaint.128 In her report on 17 November 1868, KING indicated that Eliza was now convalescent.129 On 15 December 1869, the new superintendent, CLARKE, included Eliza's name on the list of girls eligible for apprenticeship. The correspondence showed that she had been in the school for one year and three months and was fifteen and a half years old. On 5 January 1869, CLARKE sought permission from the Colonial Secretary to apprentice Eliza as a domestic servant to Thomas P. CHAPMAN, the Railway station master at Waratah near Newcastle.130 The apprenticeship was for two years and Eliza was to be paid five shillings a week for the first year and six shillings a week for the second.131 CLARKE, in a letter to Colonial Secretary on 27 January, confirmed that Eliza began her apprenticeship on 18 January 1870.132 LUCAS's list from April 1872 subsequently located CHAPMAN in Balmain133 as by this stage he and his family had moved from Newcastle taking Eliza with them.134

By early March 1870, Eliza had absconded from CHAPMAN's employment. She was rearrested in Sydney and on 7 March appeared in the Central Police Court in Sydney, on warrant, charged with absconding from her apprenticeship. Mrs CHAPMAN stated that did not wish to have Eliza back and Eliza didn't want to return so her indentures were cancelled135 and she was discharged136 straight onto the streets of Sydney and not back to Newcastle. It was recorded in the papers – based on Eliza's statement – that she was eighteen, although this age disagreed with the admission records for the school. On 10 March, Frederick KING, the Inspector of Public Charities, wrote to the Principal Under Secretary indicating that Eliza had been 'turned onto the streets of Sydney' and stressed that he had been informed by CLARKE of Eliza's correct age of:

barely 16 (she is entered as of the age of 18 in the Police records), and I submit that, as provided for in clause No 13 of the Industrial School act, instructions should be given to the Police to apprehend the girl and remove her to the Newcastle School: and further that Mr Chapman be called upon to pay the amount of wages due … This case appears to me to come quite within the meaning of the 13th Clause of the In. Schools act, and I wish to point out that if this girl obtains freedom from the school because she absconds from her situation it will exercise a very hurtful influence on the minds of other apprentices.137

The Principal Under Secretary disagreed that Eliza's case fell under the 13th Clause of the act as no complaint had been made against the CHAPMAN family by Eliza and as she had 'persisted in affirming that she was 18 the Bench considered there was no alternative but to let her go at large.' Eliza roamed about the Sydney for ten days before she again appeared in court where this time she stated that she was only fifteen. The correspondence confirmed that Eliza had taken herself to the police and admitted her true age, rather than because the police had searched for her in response to the concerns of Frederic KING,138 although Eliza had been found by constable POTTER wandering about Newtown. Eliza told POTTER that she had no home or means of subsistence so was arrested. The court returned her to Newcastle for the second time under the Industrial Schools Act139 and she was readmitted on 24 March 1870.140

In September 1870, well before the transfer to Biloela, Eliza's apprenticeship with CHAPMAN was transferred to Mr James WATKINSON, at Balmain, whose family was described as respectable by Frederic CANE. CLARKE further explained that the CHAPMAN apprenticeship had been 'a bad place' for Eliza141 but this was probably written to facilitate a further situation for Eliza and not because she had been badly treated. On 2 January 1871, a letter from WATKINSON's representative was sent. He stated:142

It is with deep regret that I am compelled to inform you of Eliza Rudd's continued bad and ungrateful conduct. On the evening of December 21st 1870 she absented herself from the house and was nowhere to be found but returned at one o'clock the following day. I abstained from informing you to give her an opportunity of mending her conduct but instead of that her conduct has been, if possible, worse she has again gone we know not were, at this present moment she is away, we have made inquiries among the neighbors & informed the police as we did on the former occasion and now will you kindly inform Mrs Watkinson if it be possible to cancel the agreement drawn in favour of Eliza Rudd for our greatest desire is to be rid of her as we cannot be answerable after this for her, she has already caused so much anxiety that Mrs Watkinson's health is seriously affected by it.

CLARKE requested that the Colonial Secretary cancel the indentures, stating that, while Eliza was compliant and co-operative whilst at the school, she was a 'very low girl'143 and stated:

I respectfully suggest that the police authorities should be requested to take action in the matter and that Rudd should be dealt with according to law.

He enclosed a description to permit her apprehension.144 Because Eliza wasn't listed on the transfer lists compiled in April 1871145 and no evidence has been located indicating that she was found after this escape, it is considered almost certain that she was never rearrested and was therefore never returned to either Newcastle or Biloela. This cannot be verified however as any readmission would have been located in the section of the Entrance Book that has not survived.

It seems very likely that after this date Eliza adopted her baptism name Elizabeth, and an altercation between Mary NASH and Elizabeth RUDD in June 1871 almost certainly refers to her.146 Mary NASH was a known brothel owner in Sydney.147

No further trace of Eliza aka Elizabeth has been confirmed after this date nor has it yet been possible to use Family Notices to track her.

Where has She Gone?

Tracking Eliza aka Elizabeth is ongoing. Most of the information below indicates who Eliza isn't rather than who she is. There are a considerable number of unverified and perhaps erroneous statements concerning Eliza in existence and most of the family researchers seem to have looked on Eliza with modern eyes and attitudes. While it is possible that Eliza settled down to become a loving wife and mother – and this would almost certainly have been her aim – circumstances may not have permitted that life to have occurred.

No appropriate death or marriage as either Eliza or Elizabeth RUDD has yet been confirmed and it is considered very likely that Eliza never married but assumed the surname of the man with whom she co-habited. The process is ongoing but it is believed that actually locating Eliza will likely require some chance occurrence.

It is not within the scope of this research to critique the research of others but numerous online trees identify that Eliza died in Hurstville in 1926. No appropriate death registration can be identified on the NSW BDM Index that would match what is known of Eliza and this statement cannot be verified. While this death may very well be correct, again these trees provide no reference and identify no married surname. Who they think they have identified is therefore unknown. The numerous errors perpetuated on an ever increasing number of online trees calls into question the rest of the reasearch that has been undertaken.

Some online trees state that Eliza married William Norman BROWN in Sydney on 10 February 1883,148 as Elizabeth J. J. RUDD. Notwithstanding her name at the time of this marriage, some of the same trees also declare that Eliza's name was actually Eliza Suzanne RUDD, and attribute second names to the entire family without offering any reference about where the names have come from. This adds further misinformation and confusion to tracking her. These researchers attribute an 1926 death to Eliza. William and Elizabeth aka Eliza are documented having many children and William Norman BROWN's death has been verified. He died in 1937 in Lismore. His obituary149 stated that his wife had died in 1921. The 1921 death150 almost certainly also occurred in the Lismore area and recorded parents for Eliza that do not match what is known of the Newcastle admission. Additionally, an obituary for Eliza BROWN in 1921 indicated that she had been born in 1864151 so was ten years younger than the Newcastle admission. The marriage to William Norman BROWN is very unlikely to be that of the girl who was admitted to Newcastle and she is therefore not the child of Thomas and Catherine RUDD.

Still other trees indicate that this 1883 marriage was between William Neathway BROWN and Elizabeth Isabella Irving RUDD. Trees identifying this relationship indicate that Eliza was baptised at St James in 1855. This baptism does not appear on the NSW BDM Index but it does appear on Familysearch. Elizabeth's parents were identified as John and Martha and she was an immigrant. Family Notices confirm that the name of Elizabeth's father was John.152 Sadly William Neathway BROWN died a year after his marriage.153 The differences between the two sets of trees seem to indicate that only one group of researchers has purchased the actual marriage registration in 1883. Therefore the tree of William Neathway BROWN is the tree that should be considered accurate and this tree verified that the Newcastle admission did not marry a man named William N. BROWN in 1883. If another marriage to a William BROWN has been made it has yet to be located and investigated.

No children have been found for the marriage of David BROWN and Elizabeth RUDD who married in Lithgow in 1882154 so this is a potential marriage for Eliza but it has not yet been investigated.

The marriage155 of Eliza J. RUDD in Wagga Wagga to John RYHNERT in 1876 is very hard to track so this investigation is also still ongoing.

The 1908 marriage156 of Elizabeth G. RUDD to Edmond G. MCGUIRE and the marriage of Elizabeth RUDD to John MACMAHON in Canterbury157 are also still being investigated.

Eliza is not the woman who married Arthur CLEMSON158 as this was the daughter of Thomas RUDD, the son of Thomas RUDD and Mary KABLE.

Eliza did not marry Cecil BEDDOE in 1900159 as this woman was the niece of the Newcastle admission and was the daughter of her half-brother, John.

The death of Eliza RUDD in 1905160 at Wagga Wagga recorded the death of the wife of John RUDD and this woman had formerly been Eliza LARKIN.

The unregistered death of Elizabeth RUDD at the age of 38161 in 1889 recorded the death of the wife of William RUDD and this woman had formerly been Elizabeth MANSELL.

The Alfred RUDD who married Alice Elizabeth WRIGHT in Newtown in 1899162 is not Eliza RUDD's son. This boy had been born in 1873 in Newtown as Alfred RUDD. His mother was recorded as Eliza and his father is not named. The actual registration has been viewed and it shows that Eliza was 22 and had been born in London, England. Alfred was admitted to the Vernon from Newtown on 28 May 1888, when he was fourteen years and eight months of age. He was recorded as a Protestant and had formerly attended Newtown Public School. A newspaper report concerning this initial admission has not yet been located but the Vernon records show that his grandfather's statement in 1888 was the evidence that sent him to the Vernon. The Vernon admissions clearly show that Alfred was the illegitimate son of Eliza RUDD. The identity of the grandfather is unknown but it is thought that he was William RUDD who arrived with his daughter Eliza, in 1855. Alfred's Vernon admission stated:

Character of parents good, companions bad … Illegitimate, Father is dead. Mother is Eliza Rudd she has no other children. Mother's character excellent. Arrested at the desire of his parents.163

Alfred was apprenticed to Albury some time before October 1890,164 when, as a newsboy employed by Mr T. F. HUGHES, newsagent, he was caught embezzling money and was taken to court.165 Alfred was readmitted to the Vernon on 12 December 1890, at the age of sixteen. Alice Elizabeth RUDD died on 13 July 1912, and Alfred RUDD went on to marry Kathleen Ellen MARSHALL. Alfred's mother, Eliza, certainly died on 4 January 1921, as an In Memoriam notice from 1922 was from Alfred.166 Alfred died in 1926 in Redfern where his parents were recorded as William F. J. RUDD and Eliza CHIVELL. Alfred was buried in the Church of England Cemetery, Rookwood, on 26 February 1926. There has only been one Alfred RUDD identified. While the death registration of the man who died in 1925 suggested that he was nearly ten years younger than the boy who was sent to the Vernon, this was not the case. The age recorded for his first marriage matched exactly with the birth date for the illegitimate child of Eliza RUDD from 1873 and his descendants have accepted this birth as that of their ancestor. Descendants have found that an appropriate family arrived on the Speedy in 1855 and this indent does show an Eliza RUDD who almost certainly was the mother of Alfred J. RUDD. It must be considered that these particular names are highly unlikely to be able to be coincidentally connected to Alfred so while there are some inconsistencies with the ages, their research combined with the 1888 statement that the mother of Alfred J. RUDD had an excellent character, strongly suggested that Alfred is not connected to the Newcastle admission at all. The statement 'mother's character excellent' would almost certainly not have been said about the girl who was sent to Newcastle.

Updated August 2020

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License