Thursday, January 28, 2010
More photos of Fanny Jane Smith Bishop
Above: Two very different photos of Fanny Jane Smith. The first is of a younger, softer Fanny. She is fuller in the face than the older woman who appears in the photo underneath.
The bottom photo is of an older, more polished, confident woman.Both photos were taken in Melbourne in the 1860s.
Court Procedings-Bishop V Bishop
Above: Joseph Bishop, the respondent in the divorce case Bishop V Bishop.
In late July, 1873, Fanny Jane Bishop presented her affidavit, stating her case and her wish for her marriage to be nullified.Joseph responded to her statements on September 9, and from then on the official documents bounced back and forward from legal side to the other.
The following blog entries contain copies of the original court documents concerning the lead up to the actual Court hearing.
The 1870s-Joseph Bishop's painful last years.
The family story passed down to me concerning the separation of Joseph Bishop and his second wife, Fanny, was told to me by my great Uncle, Gordon Oakley.Joseph Bishop was his great-great Uncle, and Gordon's grandfather, Henry Bishop, lived with the Oakleys until his death in 1918. It was Henry, Joseph's nephew, who told his grandsons the tale of the wicked Fanny Jane Smith,the gold digger who married Joe for his wealth, spent it all quickly and then divorced him because of his impotency.
Great story, but how to prove if it was true? On March 18, 2000, there arrived for me in the mail a thick collection of documents from the Public Record Office of Victoria...so thick, in fact, that it had to be collated into two stapled books rather than just one.It was the divorce file relating to Joseph Bishop and Fanny Jane Smith, "falsely called Bishop", and what I found inside was simply amazing.
Briefly, Fanny was accusing Joe of causing her physical and mental anguish by failing to consummate their marriage, despite frequent attempts over the three years of their marriage prior to her going back to England.
According to Fanny,her husband's impotency had led to the condition mennorrhagia, or hemorrhage from the uterus, and her doctor (who also happened to be her future brother-in-law) had told her that if she didn't leave him her life would be in danger.
Fanny stayed with her parents until, after pleading by Joseph for her to come back to him, she returned to Melbourne on the ship 'Agamemnon' in November of 1869.They lived together from January 1870 until August 14 of the same year. On this date they separated permanently, having Joseph's solicitor Frederick Moule draw up a deed of separation.
For almost three years all seems to have remained quiet...Joseph continued to earn a living as a mining speculator, and Fanny was living comfortably on the earnings of her marriage property settlement.
Then, in July of 1873, Fanny decided that she had a chance at total separation from Joseph. After talking to Frederick Moule about methods by which she could achieve a divorce from Joseph, and having Joseph refuse two offers that she made him, she came up with a risky plan that would either ruin her reputation forever or gain her freedom. She claimed in court that her doctor made her aware of the facts of what constituted the consummation of a marriage in 1872, and until then she was not aware that it was grounds for an annulment.Coincidentally, Frederick Moule had also lent Fanny a well-known text called 'McKean On Divorce', and commented to her at its return that she now knew more on the subject than he did.
On July 23, 1873, the first document by “Fanny Jane Smith falsely called Bishop” was filed in her quest to have her marriage with Joseph Bishop declared null. Fanny’s address at this time was “12 Jolimont Road, Melbourne”.
Great story, but how to prove if it was true? On March 18, 2000, there arrived for me in the mail a thick collection of documents from the Public Record Office of Victoria...so thick, in fact, that it had to be collated into two stapled books rather than just one.It was the divorce file relating to Joseph Bishop and Fanny Jane Smith, "falsely called Bishop", and what I found inside was simply amazing.
Briefly, Fanny was accusing Joe of causing her physical and mental anguish by failing to consummate their marriage, despite frequent attempts over the three years of their marriage prior to her going back to England.
According to Fanny,her husband's impotency had led to the condition mennorrhagia, or hemorrhage from the uterus, and her doctor (who also happened to be her future brother-in-law) had told her that if she didn't leave him her life would be in danger.
Fanny stayed with her parents until, after pleading by Joseph for her to come back to him, she returned to Melbourne on the ship 'Agamemnon' in November of 1869.They lived together from January 1870 until August 14 of the same year. On this date they separated permanently, having Joseph's solicitor Frederick Moule draw up a deed of separation.
For almost three years all seems to have remained quiet...Joseph continued to earn a living as a mining speculator, and Fanny was living comfortably on the earnings of her marriage property settlement.
Then, in July of 1873, Fanny decided that she had a chance at total separation from Joseph. After talking to Frederick Moule about methods by which she could achieve a divorce from Joseph, and having Joseph refuse two offers that she made him, she came up with a risky plan that would either ruin her reputation forever or gain her freedom. She claimed in court that her doctor made her aware of the facts of what constituted the consummation of a marriage in 1872, and until then she was not aware that it was grounds for an annulment.Coincidentally, Frederick Moule had also lent Fanny a well-known text called 'McKean On Divorce', and commented to her at its return that she now knew more on the subject than he did.
On July 23, 1873, the first document by “Fanny Jane Smith falsely called Bishop” was filed in her quest to have her marriage with Joseph Bishop declared null. Fanny’s address at this time was “12 Jolimont Road, Melbourne”.
The Soho Foundry, Ballarat
Top: From the Argus newspaper, Saturday, September 8, 1866.
Middle: Argus, Wednesday, October 3, 1866.
Bottom: Soho Foundry, Ballarat,under its new ownership by William Errington, c. 1867.
The wheels fall off Joe's wagon- 1866.
Above: This advertisement appeared in the Ballarat Directory of 1865-66.
In the 'Argus' of 31 July, 1866 the following item appeared: “We understand that the bills of Messrs Joseph Bishop & Co, iron founders, Ballarat, have been returned dishonoured. A meeting of creditors will be called in a few days."
This was followed on August 2, 1866 with “Messrs Joseph Bishop & Co of Ballarat, whose suspension we noted a few days ago, have called a meeting of their creditors for Friday next. The total liabilities are said not to be in excess of ten thousand pounds."
Four days later, on August 6, 1866: “A meeting of the creditors of Messrs Joseph Bishop and Co, iron founders, Ballarat, resulted in the assignment of the estate to Messrs Jenner and H. Henty, for the general benefit. The statement submitted to the meeting showed liabilities amounting to 9,141 pounds and assets estimated at 8,020 pounds. The contingent liabilities amount to five thousand pounds.”
By September of 1866 the 'Argus' was carrying advertisements for the sale of Soho Foundry, Ballarat-land, machinery, buildings and equipment.In December all claims on the estate of Joseph Bishop & Co were being called for, and it was the end of the road for Joseph Bishop's long career as an ironmonger. The Soho Foundry was taken on by an engineer named William Errington, although in February of 1868 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Soho Foundry, Ballarat, is to be turned into a brewery"
The fall of Joseph Bishop's finances corresponded with his Fanny's desire to remain his wife.In March of 1867 she boarded the ship 'Holmsdale' and sailed back to England, where she resided with her parents, Robert and Rebecca Smith, at Chew Magna Somersetshire, for two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
