NZ Death Index 1892/3204 CHATFIELD, Alfred William 80Y
-----
Burial & Cremation Details
Surname CHATFIELD
First Names Alfred William
Age 80 Years
Gender Male
Date of Death 08 Aug 1892
Religion Not Listed
Serial No 475
Funeral Director Unknown
Cemetery Purewa Cemetery
Location Block B Row 4 Plot 65
Date of Service and/or Interment 10 Aug 1892
What Buried? Body
-----
Burial Plot: Block B Row 4 Plot 65.
Find A Grave Memorial# 122420634
=====
CHATFIELD Alfred William (crew, seaman cook) [the crew and the three surveyor’s labourers were considered to be an addition to the colony’s population, so were named in the ‘Register of Emigrant Labourers’ and were conveyed at the expense of the Emigration Fund.] so appeared that he applied to emigrate to SA 27 Apr 1836 where as in fact it would have been signing on. Embarkation No. 124 (very early) agent Col. Wm Light. Left London on Brig 'Rapid' 1 May 1836 as crew member. Arrived Kingscote, Kangaroo Island on 20 Aug 1836 with 24 immigrants and Colonel Wm Light who surveyed and chose the site for Adelaide. Listed on The Rapid as CHATFIELD, Arthur William 23 - Crew on Rapid, Seaman Applic. 0310, Embark. 124. He then went back to UK perhaps to complete work contract before emigrating back to Adelaide in 1838.
-----
Note from Stuart Smith. 'Alfred was a member of Colonel William Light's survey party, arriving in South Australia 22 Aug 1836 on the "Rapid Elizabeth" (NB not Elizabeth just 'Rapid'). (Light was responsible for setting out Adelaide circa 1836/7), Alfred William returned to England when the survey was complete.'
-----
List of crew and passengers on The Rapid's first trip in 1836
http://boundforsouthaustralia.net.au/ships/passenger-lists/rapid-passenger-list.html
-----
The Ship Arrivals of the 'Rapid' show the following:
Rapid 22 Aug 1836 Arr. at Kingscote, SA from London (Blackwall). 1st voyage which he was on.
Rapid 20 Jun 1838 Arr. at Pt Adelaide, SA from London. 2nd voyage he was not on it.
-----
He purchased in South Adelaide Lot 149 Section 150 a plot of land for £8.18.0d as reported in the South Australian Gazette and Colonial Register newspaper 27th March 1837, he was of the Brig 'Rapid'. Trips took four months at the time.
-----
CHATFIELD Alfred William and Harriett nee HOLBROOK emigrated to Adelaide, Australia 1838, married at sea on 25 Aug 1838 arrived morning of Friday 12 Oct 1838 on "Pestongee Bomanjee" from London in the Glenelg Roads, journey took four months. On board was Governor Gawler and 200 emigrants. Remarried Harriet at Holy Trinity Church in Adelaide 21 Feb 1839.
-----
16 Mar 1839
Feb 21 1839 Alfred William Chatfield to Harriet Holbrook the marriage having been previously solemnized on board the Pestonjee Bomanjee by the master of that ship.
-----
South Australian Register, Adelaide, SA : Saturday 25 July 1840
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27441664?searchTerm=Chatfield#pstart2049859
SHERRIFF'S SALE Charles Hopkins, John H. Theakston, & C. Platts. v. Alfred William Chatfield. TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, On Tuesday, July 2nd, 184O, at noon, on the premises of A. W. CHATFIELD, grocer, &c, situated between Bentham and Co's. auction rooms and Messrs Hack's store, Hindley Street, Adelaide — All the STOCK-IN-TRADE, consisting of the usual articles to be found in general stores. By order of the Sheriff, C.B. Newneham, Sheriff. Government Auctioneer. C. B. Newneham, Sheriff. after which Several sundries under execution of Sheriff and Magistrate's Court. NEALE's BENTHAM, Governmentnt Auctioneer.
-----
Lived in Waymouth Street, Adelaide in 1837 (on 1st trip) and 1841. (Correct spelling of Waymouth not Weymouth).
Census 1841 Adelaide SA listed living in Gouger Street, Adelaide. Had an under 14 female in house, maybe a maid.
-----
SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SIDE.
South Australian Register, Adelaide, SA : Saturday 30 October 1841
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27442921?searchTerm=Chatfield#pstart2050187
Tuesday, October, 26 1841. John Reynell v. T. Jones, for trespass, in carrying away sundry goods and chattels, value £00, the property of the plaintiff, from Adelaide. Pleas—General issue, not guilty ; denial of posession by plaintiff at the time. Damages laid at £100. Mr Mann stated that Mr Bigwood, of Rundle Street, rented premises there of Mr Reynell, and £70 had become due to Mr Reynell, for which a Bill of Sale was taken by Reynell from Bigwood, and a party was put in possession for Reynell. After the assignment had been made Jones entered on a claim against Bigwood, and removed the goods to Mr Wicksteeds, for sale. The learned Council contended that Mr Reynell was in possession, and having adverted to the subject of damages, called— Alfred William Chatfield—Knew Levi Bigwood. Had seen him write. The signature to the deed produced was Bigwood's writing. Saw deed delivered. Kept possession for plaintiff from 15th to 20th September. The order produced was in the handwriting of Mr James. On the 20th Defendant took possession. Was in possession for Plaintiff at the time. Forbade defendant from taking possession, telling him the property was Mr Reynell's. Showed Jones the Bill of Sale. Defendant said if he could not take them by fair means he would by foul. Two or three days later defendant removed the goods to Wicksteed's sale room. Defendant showed his warrant. Saw no copy of warrant. Cross-examined—Was in possession from 15th to 20th. During that time Bigwood sold a little ale and porter. Sold it by Mr Keynell's authority. Did not see money paid, but saw a receipt for £70 7s. 4d. Thinks receipt produced is the one. Date of receipt was 14th September. Read memorandum produced before signing it. Interlineation was then existing. Possession was given to Mr James for Mr Reynell. Recollects defendant coming in. Thinks it was on the 20th. Kept possession of deed from 15th to 24th September. Did not part from it meanwhile. The porter and wine sold by Bigwood were trifling in quantity. Saw possession given. Mr James, Bigwood, and Witness were present. Bigwood did not leave the premises. House was open till defendant came. Does not know if Bigwood's name was erased. Was called on by Mr James on the 16th September. Re-examined—Saw receipt at the time. Was given at time deed was executed, Mr James, plaintiff's attorney, was present on his part. Bigwood could not take any goods without witness's consent. Witness was answerable. By the Judge—There were four rooms in the house besides the bar. Witness slept in the kitchen. Bigwood and wife slept in their own bedroom. No one else slept in the house till Jones's men came. Took possession of all the goods. A glass tumbler was given as representing all the goods. Every article remained as before. Bigwood gave witness an account of what he sold verbally. Nothing was sold on credit. Kept no written account. (An order to witness, by Mr James, to allow Bigwood to sell, was here read). Was in the bar all day. Did not go into other rooms except for meals. Wm. James, Attorney for Plaintiff— Attended as agent for defendant on occasion in question. An account had passed between Bigwood and self. Account produced was the one. Account due was £70 7s. 4d. Paper produced did not pass at the time. Receipt produced passed at the time of execution of the deed. It passed as money between the parties. Had no Power of Attorney or written instruction to attend, but had plaintiff's verbal instruction. Had heard that other parties were about to proceed against Bigwood. This was before the Bill of Sale. Does not recollect Bigwood saying an order had been made against him from the Resident Magistrate's Court. By the Judge—Was given to understand there were not £70 worth of goods on the premises. The goods brought at auction £26. Frederic Wicksteed acts for Mr Jones occasionally. Remembers receiving goods from Bigwood. Believes account produced to be a correct one. Goods brought between £25 and £26. Saw the goods taken from premises. Would have valued them about 15 or 20 per cent. more as between parties. Mr Lambert valued the goods in question; amount of valuation, £26. Valued them at Mr Wicksteed's room. Would have valued them at 20 per cent, more as fixtures. Levi Bigwood—Chatfield was in the house from the signing of the deed till removal of goods. John Reynell, the plantiff, is witness's landlord. The rent due was £70 4s. 4d.—less £1 for an 8lb. cheese. Received the receipt in the evening of the 12th. Saw the deed in Chatfield's possession. Never had it in his own possession Does not know where deed was when Jones entered. May have brought box containing bill of sale to CHATFIELD, but believes he never showed the latter to Lapthorne, but might have done it. Thinks an order from Resident Magistrate's Court, on part of McKeen & Auld, reached witness on 14th. Told plaintiff that parties were pushing him. He replied—l must secure myself. Rent was payable weekly— £3 per week at first, and afterwards reduced to £2 5s, with back allowance. Lease was prepared, but not signed. Took the house March 23. 1840. for no definitive period. Goods were taken from the first against the rent. Name is still over the door as licensed publican. Continued to reside there after the bill of sale. Continued to sell as for Mr Reynell. Paid housekeeping out of proceeds. Very little was sold. Cbatfield was in the house. By the Judge—After goods were so!d. some few remained on the premises, and are there still. Mr Fisher having addressed the jury for the defence— His Honor charged the jury that all the circumstances of the case showed that the transaction was colorable and fraudulent, in the legal sense of the term, as against the execution creditors, and remarked that the joint possession of the plaintiff and Bigwood was inconsistent with the bill of sale, and consequently illegal. The jury having retired for more than two hours returned into court to ask two questions of his Honor. The first, was whether Mr Chatfield was legally in possession before the assignment was made ? The second, whether the assignment was legal or not ? The answer to the first question was—that Mr Chatfield was not in possession until the assignment was made; to the second, that an assignment might be honorable as between two parties, yet prejudicial to thc interests of a third. When an assignment of goods was made, it should be actually, not nominally, done; and all parties interested should have an opportunity of knowing the fact. The ordinary rule is, that possession must be consistent with the deed, or bill of sale. In the present case, if Mr Bigwood had gone out of possession, no legal fraud could have been alleged. The real question was, whether assignments might be made for the benefit of particular parties, which should render the Sheriff and other parties liable to actions for trespass. His Honor concluded by referring the jury to the exposition of the law of the case already laid before them. After again retiring, the jury brought in a verdict for the defendant.
-----
William Alfred Chatfield of Hindley St., Adelaide, Mariner found insolvent 22 Jul 1841, Declared Bankrupt Owing £694. Served Time In Gaol. Book 8 Jul 1841 p3, in Court 1, Jul 1846. Day on which Petitioner will be heard on his Petition Friday July 30, 1841. Discharged 7 Aug 1841. Listed in SA Government Gazette. (Names probably transposed)
-----
The South Australian Register Wednesday, November 22 1843
Return of Insolvents
RETURN of Persons who have been declared Insolvent since the Establishment qf the Insolvency Court in South Australia, showing the Debts, Assetts, and Deficiency, according to their respective Schedules, and the Amounts received in each case to this Eleventh day November, 1843.
Note in the column headed "Amount of Debts" the insolvent's liabilities are also included. Under the head of "Credits" the bad and doubtful debts,
William Alfred Chatfield 8 Jul 1841 Mariner £694.0.0d
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27445983?searchTerm=Chatfield
-----
Listed in "Biographical Index of South Australians 1836-1885".
-----
He left Adelaide 12 Jan 1844 on the "St Helena" schooner to Tasmania to work as overseer in Port Arthur. Listed in The Register and Observer Adelaide papers of 13 Jan 1844.
Hobart Town Courier and Van Diemen's Land Gazette Feb 2nd 1844. "January 26 1844
Arrived the schooner St. Helena, 142 tons, Mann, from London via Cape of Good Hope 11th December (via Adelaide), with wine - cabin passengers, Mrs. Harrison and two children, Mrs. Mann - steerage, D. Garlick, Mr. CHATFIELD, wife, and three children."
-----
He arrived in Tasmania
Family Name Title Ship ----- Port of Departure Date of Arrival Remarks References
Chatfield Mr St Helena Cape of Good Hope 26 Jan 1844 CSO92/12 p22
Chatfield Mrs St Helena Cape of Good Hope 26 Jan 1844 & 3 chn CSO92/12 p22
-----
"Convict Department Employees 1859
Taken from Legislative Council Records Hard Copy Vol 1, 6th Session 1860
CHATFIELD A.W. Assistant Superintendent Shoemakers, Port Arthur. Appointed Feb 1852. First appointment April 1847 "
-----
Occupation has been listed as mariner, gaoler.
Convict Department Employees 1859
-----
The Hobarton Mercury, Tas. Wednesday 20 June 1855
http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3335794?searchTerm=Chatfield
Port Arthur,
June 18th, 1855.
Sir,-In reply to your memorandum dated the 16th instant, I beg to state that I am not aware of any carts or other articles, ever having been manufactured at this Establishment for the Melbourne, or any other market, during the years 1853 & 1854, or up to the present time.
I have the honor to be
Sir.
Your most obedient servant,
(Signed.) A.W. Chatfield.
Assistant Superintendant.
CHATFIELD A.W. 1875 Victoria (Aus) Names in Government Gazettes, Victoria.
-----
Following the closure of Port Arthur penal settlement, he lived in the Parsonage for a number of years.
-----
RESEARCHERS:
Hugh Mason of Bath, England
Noel Kreegher, New Zealand
Stuart Smith, Australia
Colin CHATFIELD, UK and France
