William and Mary had 11 children.
Elizabeth Bradshaw B 23 Dec 1821 d 23 Feb 1842 m Capt Joseph Oakley
William Bradshaw B 6 July 1823 d 1895 m Louisa Elwin
James Thomas Bradshaw B 1824 d 10 July 1896 m Ellen Bacon d 1867 m. Jane Hay John Bradshaw B 21 Dec 1827 d 1892 m Maria Bacon He was a miller in Oatlands
Sarah Ann Bradshaw B 5 Mar 1830 d 1842 m Thomas Bowden
Jemima Lillian Bradshaw B 28 Mar 1834 d 1899 m James Bruce
Frederick David Bradshaw B 23 Nov 1835 d 28 June 1869 not married
Thomas Alfred Bradshaw B 7 Nov 1839 d 6 Jan 1840
Louisa Bradshaw B 13 July 1843 d 1854
Alfred Henry Edward Bradshaw B 16 July 1846 d 12 May 1918 m Margaret Spelman
He made his first visit to New Zealand as far back as the year 1833, when an apprentice on one of the Old London Whaling Company's whaling vessels. At that time — sixty years ago—the Bay of Islands, where the whaler touched, was the rendezvous for hundreds of whaling vessels from various parts of the world - long before New Zealand became a British colony. One of Captain Oakley's fellow apprentices on this ship was Mr Wm. Brown, now a well known old resident of Whangaroa.
Mr Brown left his ship at the Bay of Islands. The deceased served his time in whaling vessels, and remained in the whaling business in the South Seas for some years. Subsequently he was in other vessels, and ran a Hobart steamer on the Derwent river (Tasmania) for some time.
Afterwards he conducted hotels at New Norfolk (Tasmania) and in Hobart, and came to New Zealand some twenty years ago. He had been retired from the sea for many years.
WISE v. HARBURGH.
For plaintiff Mr. Graves ; for defendant Mr. Moriarty.
The action was brought by Frederick Henry Wise against James Harburgh [Hurburgh], the plaint alleging that the defendant, on Tuesday, the 4th July last, so negligently and unskilfully navigated and directed a vessel known as the Letitia in the River Derwent, in the port of Hobart Town, of which he had charge as pilot, that the said vessel ran foul of, and struck against, the steamer Monarch, be-longing to the plaintiff, whereby the steamer was injured, and one of her boats stove and destroyed, and the plaintiff incurred expense in surveying and repairing the damage done to the same, and the plain-tiff lost the use of the said boat for a long time, and the profits that he might have derived there from. Damages claimed, £20 9s. 6d.
Defendant pleaded 1, not guilty by statute (21 | Vict., No. 16, sec. 64) ; 2, that the vessel was towed to her anchorage in the port by the steamer, whereof plaintiff is owner and master, while plaintiff was on board his steamer ; and the injury was caused by plaintiff's negligent and unskilful towage. 3. That the harbour master is the proper officer to navigate and direct shipping in that part of the port where the injury happened, and the harbour master was on board the steamer when the vessel was towed to an anchorage appointed and directed by him, and according to the custom and usage of the port his (the defendant's) charge as pilot ceased when the harbour master undertook the navigation and direction of the vessel.
Mr. Graves, having opened the case, said the real issue raised was who was to blame, who caused the injury?
Frederick Henry Wise, the plaintiff, deposed that he was the owner of the Monarch, steamer ; on the 4th July, his vessel was engaged to tow the brig Letitia, and witness was in charge of the steamer ; he fastened on to the brig down by Moir's shot tower. Defendant was in charge as pilot, he towed the vessel up as far as the end of the New Wharf by the Ordnance Stores. Mr. Babington, the harbour master, went in the steamer and remained in her till he gave the order to let go ; the steamer then went onwards to her usual berth at the Franklin Wharf, when the harbour master went in his boat towards the brig. Defendant was then still on board, and had dropped the anchor near the steamer ; his course was at the end of the New Wharf near the watering tap ; the anchor did not check her in time and she came on in the steamer's wake, and came right into its stern, smashing the boat and the stern of the steamer. Witness paid £12 for a new boat, and £8 9s. 6d. for repairs of the steamer; the value of the old boat was £10. Witness applied to the captain of the brig, but he declined to pay on the ground that he was under compulsory pilotage.
By Mr. Moriarty: I had the regulation of the speed of the steamer. I did not slack the speed before the anchor was let go, but the steamer was along side the wharf before the anchor was let go. The steamer was going at the rate of 4 or 5 miles an hour.
The harbour master did not give me directions where to go. I don't remember defendant giving me direction. I had a long tow line, but the speed was not too great. The tow line was let go when we were at the Prince's Steps, the brig was by the Ordnance Stores.
I looked to Mr. Babington for directions as to when to cast off the tow line. I am not aware that defendant interfered as to when the tow line was to be cast off. The brig was deeply and heavily laden, and she went fairly into the centre of the stern. Mr. Harburgh [Hurburgh] had an opportunity of in-specting the damage. I have never known Harburgh [Hurburgh] berth a vessel, but I have known Bleach.
By the Judge : The anchor was not let go till the brig was nearly up to our berth ; she could have dropped her anchor long before she did.
John Rees, mate of the Monarch, gave corroborative evidence, and remembered the harbour master giving orders to let go the tow line about the Prince's Steps, when the steamer came on to her berth, the brig following in her wake, and running into her. The anchor of the brig dropped not far from the steamer's stern.
Cross-examined: The distance was about 100 yards, and if the brig had answered her helm there would have been no occasion for a collision.
By Mr. Graves : If I had been pilot the accident would not have happened. (A laugh.)
By the Judge : The anchor could have been let go sooner.
By a juror: We were close into Prince's Steps when we cast off, and not more than six lengths away.
Mr. Moriarty submitted that the pleas had been sustained. The first plea was not guilty by statute, the 64th section of the Port Act. It was clear that the ground tackle of the brig was not sufficient for a vessel of that burden. The harbour master had jurisdiction, and the evidence showed that he had exercised that jurisdiction.
His Honor reminded the learned counsel that no practice could relieve the pilot of his legal responsibility to bring the vessel into port, and see it safely at anchor.
Mr. Moriarty submitted that the controlling power of the brig was in the steamboat, and the defendant could hardly be held responsible for what was done by the steamboat. It was not as if the ship were under canvas and not under the control of the steamboat.
His Honor said there could be no doubt that where a vessel was to be towed by a steamer, and a pilot was on board, that pilot had the control of the vessel and also of the steamer.
Mr Moriarty said in that case the matter was nar-rowed to the question whether the tow line was thrown off at the proper time. He repudiated any imputation of negligence on Mr. Harburgh [Hurburgh] for he had only acted according to the usage of the port, and dropped the anchor when Mr Babington ordered him to do so. Mr Harburgh [Hurburgh] had been connected with the port for many years, and this was the first time that any accident had occurred. It could not be shown that there was any culpability on his part.
James Harburgh [Hurburgh], the defendant, proved that he was a pilot and had been so for eight and twenty years. He had brought up many vessels, and whenever the harbour master came he had given up the charge to him. He considered the harbour master was in charge.
Mr Graves objected to the evidence as involving mere matters of law.
His Honor said it amounted to proof that the witness had delegated to another what he ought to have done himself.
Examination continued : I considered I was bound to act upon the orders of the harbour master. I should have given the order to cast off the warp, had I considered I was in charge. The brig did not answer her helm.
By Mr Graves : It is the duty of pilots to anchor the vessel somewhere.
By Mr Moriarty : And I had anchored her at Sandy Point.
By the Judge : I gave orders to weigh anchor when she was to be towed. No sail was up. I attribute the accident to the vessel having too much impetus, being heavily laden, and the anchor not holding. Tho harbour master is harbour pilot as well; he relieves the pilot and assumes the command ; if the harbour master does not come I anchor the vessel at my own discretion, in a clear place, and the harbour master comes and takes charge. I did not get a certificate of pilotage from the captain of the vessel. Without the presence of the harbour master I should not anchor a vessel where this was anchored. I have been relieved by the harbour master while a vessel has been under sail.
Edward Imms, a boatman, proved that he watched the Letitia coming in, and her anchor was let go at the usual place.
Mr Graves replied on the evidence, submitting that the pilot was liable in this case. No doubt there had been an error in judgment on the part of Mr Harburgh [Hurburgh], and it was unfortunate for him, but it was equally unfortunate for Mr Wise.
His Honor in charging the jury having explained the nature of the claim, and of the defence set up, said the case was a novel one in this colony, and it might be owing to the skilful pilots we had had in the ports, and this, he believed, was the first case in which the law had been discussed in a court of justice here, and certainly the ideas of parties appeared to be wild as to their duties and obligations. As to the first principle to be observed in reference to the tug and tow, when the contract was made the law would imply an engagement that each vessel would perform its duty in completing it ; that proper skill and diligence would be used on board of each, and that neither vessel, by neglect or misconduct, would create unnecessary risk to the other, or increase any risk which might be incidental to the service undertaken. If in the course of the performance of this contract, any inevitable accident happened to the one without any default on the part of the other, no cause of action could arise. If, on the other hand, the wrongful act of either occasioned any damage to the other, such wrongful act would create a responsibility on the party committing it, if the sufferer had not by any misconduct or unskilfulness on his part contributed to the accident.
With reference to who was liable, a pilot when he took charge of a vessel was responsible for all that took place, for in the eye of the law both the tug and the tow, the steamer towing and the vessel towed, were under the charge of the pilot, for the steamer was looked on as nothing more than the motive power of the ship, and tho pilot was in charge ot the whole ; the law was that the pilot had the absolute control. Dr Lushington, Judge of the Admiralty Court, said, " I consider it to be part of the contract itself that the steam tug should be subservient to the pilot on board the vessel in tow, and that it is the duty of the per-sons on board the steam tug implicitly to obey and carry out his orders." Then it was put as a ground of defence that the harbour master had charge. Now, if the harbour master had charge, no doubt he was the person who should be there as defendant and not Mr. Harburgh [Hurburgh]. But the 21st Vct. No. 16, the Marine Board Act, defined the rights and duties of pilots to be very much what they were in England. The master of a foreign ship was bound to accept a pilot, and he was then deprived of authority, the pilot being in the eye of the law responsible for all negligence that took place till that vessel was finally at its destination in port, its final moorings, for "the final moorings are usually considered as the termination of the voyage, and the completion of pilot service."
The duty of the harbour master was defined by the 64th section, "whenever a vessel not employed in coasting only arrives within the port, the harbour master shall appoint the place where she is to cast anchor or be moored." It does not say the harbour master is to navigate the vessel, but only to appoint the place where she is to cast anchor or be moored, and if the vessel is required to be moored notice is to be given to the harbour master, and the harbour master was empowered to " move the vessel."
Why? Because there is no pilot on board. His Honor, having stated the law, proceeded to apply the facts to the law, which was to operate whatever the practice or usage had been. He believed Mr. Harburgh [Hurburgh] was in charge of the brig and the steamer for the time being, and Mr. Wise was bound to obey the orders of the pilot, and would have been liable for damages had any ensued through not obeying his orders. It was the pilot's duty to throw off the warp in time, and not to wait for directions from the harbour master or any other person, and to order the anchor to be let go at a proper time. It was not
Mr. Wise's duty to throw the warp off, it was not Mr.Babington's duty, but it was undoubtedly that of the pilot. Had there been negligence on Mr. Wise's part he would have been barred from claiming compensation. It was for the jury to say whether there had been negligence, and who was the cause of it. If the jury found for Mr. Wise, the measure of damages would be the loss sustained by repairing the steamer and replacing the boat.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £18 9s. 6d.
He again came to Hobart in 1834, and stopped behind on account of ill health. On recovering, he received the appointment of mate to a Government vessel called the Vansittart, and subsequently went as master of the Government schooner Eliza, built at Hobart as a yacht for the then Governor, Sir George Arthur, and which was also used as a cruiser after runaways.
THE NOTORIUS McMANUS.—It is in the highest degree reprehensible that the authorities should let such desperate characters at large amongst the community as the one whose last sin is now to be recorded. He is a man who has been twice on the gallows—his last sentence at Norfolk Island was to be confined in solitary for his natural life for stabbing Mr. Woolnough, a jailor or chief constable there. This man was sent to the service of Mr. Richard Pybus, a settler on Bruni Island, and had been scarcely ten days in his service before he perpetrated one of the most heinous crimes on the wife of a tenant of Mr Pybus. At 11 o'clock at night he went to Mrs. Rocoe's house and demanded admittance, at the same time knowing that her husband was from home, he having a craft trading from Hobart Town to Bruni. After obtaining admittance, this villain presented a carving knife to Mrs. Roscoe, and threatened that if she refused to grant him his desires, he would run her through the heart. He staid until daylight in the house and then decamped, after satisfying his brutal desire. And who is this person? No other than the notorious Francis McManus
BARR V SAME
WRITS of FIERI FACIAS dated the inst., levied upon all the right, title, and interest of defendants, Mary Bradshaw, as devisee, and William Bradshaw as eldest son and heir-at-law of William Bradshaw deceased, in and to all those 220 acres of land situate in the parish of Arundel and bounded by lands now or formerly belonging to Barnard Ward, James Welsh, Thomas Shone, Crown lands, and the Back River
Also, all those 100 acres of land situate and being in the parish of Arundel aforesaid bounded on the south-east by the Back River, on the south west by a north-westerly line of 47 chains 60 links along lot 133, on the north-west by a perpendicular of 22 chains, and on the north-west by a perpendicular of 41 chains along lot 135 to the Back River.
Likewise in and to those 10 acres of land (part of 30 acres granted to Barnard Ward) separated from the said 100 acres by the Back River, and bounded by said river and by part of the grants to Ward and Shone, which the Sheriff will put up for sale by public auction at the Court-house, Macquarie Street, Hobart Town, on WEDNESDAY, the 2nd day of May next, at 12 o'clock at noon unless these Executions are previously satisfied.
Sketches of the above lands and the title deeds (of the 220 and 100 acres) may be seen, and further particulars obtained at the office of Mi RUSSELL YOUNG, Solicitor, 14, Macquarie Street.
Proprietor/Occupier of Hodge Farm 300 acres
Occupier of 84 acres owned by William Young (BiL)
Occupier of Crown Land lot 172 500 acres
Jannet and Samuel Gunn had 5 children, 2 married into the Jillett family.
Mary Jane Gunn Christened 1st January 1805 in
Samuel James Gunn Christened 8th July 1808.
Daniel John Gunn Christened 23rd August 1813
In 1812 Samuel Gunn built the "Campbell Mac Quarie" a square rig ship. Governor Davey granted him 50 acres of land and Samuel built a large house in Hunter Street.
Mary Jane's mother Janett Gunn died aged 46 years on 4th April 1826. Her father Samuel then married Ann Hart in 1827 in Hobart. In 1823 Samuel Gunn had built on land at Mac Quarie Point Hobart town.
From May 1848 to October 1857 Samuel had 13 convicts assigned to him.
On 27th June 1837 a Samuel Gunn departed Hobart aboard the "Emma" for Kangaroo Island in South Australia. This area provided the salt required for the whaling fleets.
Dennis and Martha and children Eliza, Anne, and Maria, Margaret was born at sea in 1833.
Their other children Dennis, James, Ellen and Charles were born in Tasmania
had a large family
George Gregory Bradshaw 1858
1938 m Isabell Arnett
William Race Bradshaw 1859 1940 m Agnes Lyall
Charles Bradshaw 1862 - 1932 m Caroline Mary Worrell m Lucy Abbott
Maria Fanny Bradshaw 1863 -1949
Mary Ellen Bradshaw 1865 - 1949
Percival Dennis Bradshaw 1868 -
1917 m Ada Lyon
Henry Bradshaw 1870 - 1888
Bradshaw 1876 - 1952
James George Gregory Bradshaw details of an entry in Cyclopaedia of
Tasmania: 1900, p.537 no photograph) Thanks to Sue Collins
Mr George Bradshaw, engineer in charge of the machine shops for the Mount Lyell
Company was born in Oatlands, Midlands of Tasmania in 1858 and educated
there. His father the late Mr John Bradshaw was a miller of Oatlands, and
had the first steam flour mills in that town, being one of the first to
introduce silk dressing machines in Tasmania.
On completing his education he served his apprenticeship with Mr John Clark
late inspector of machinery, Hobart. He then joined the Main Line Railway
Company of Tasmania, under Honorable C.H,. Grant, MLC. CE, general manager and
was for 6 years the foreman of machines under the immediate supervision of Mr
William Cundy the locomotive superintendent of the company.
He then started business for himself and erected flour mills in various parts
of the colony. After a short sojourn of 12 months in Queensland, he
returned to Tasmania and took a position at the Golden Gate mine at Mathinna,
where he remained until 1890. He then went to Zeehan and remained in the
employ of the Silver Queen Company for 12 months. Leaving that company's
employ to erect the machinery for the Adelaide Silver Mining Company, Dundas.
Mr. Bradshaw was there until the mine closed down and in 1896 he found himself
working in the machine shops of the Mount Lyell Company and also assisting in
the erection of the converting plant.
His abilities were recognised by the company, who appointed him engineer in
charge of their machine ships in November 1897.
He was a member of the Queenstown Town Board from 1898. In 1897 he
married Miss Arnett, daughter of the late Simon Arnett, council clerk for many
years for the municipality of Bothwell.
Mr George Bradshaw, engineer in charge of the machine shops for the Mount Lyell Company was born in Oatlands, Midlands of Tasmania in 1858 and educated there. His father the late Mr John Bradshaw was a miller of Oatlands, and had the first steam flour mills in that town, being one of the first to introduce silk dressing machines in Tasmania.
On completing his education he served his apprenticeship with Mr John Clark late inspector of machinery, Hobart. He then joined the Main Line Railway Company of Tasmania, under Honorable C.H,. Grant, MLC. CE, general manager and was for 6 years the foreman of machines under the immediate supervision of Mr William Cundy the locomotive superintendent of the company.
He then started business for himself and erected flour mills in various parts of the colony. After a short sojourn of 12 months in Queensland, he returned to Tasmania and took a position at the Golden Gate mine at Mathinna, where he remained until 1890. He then went to Zeehan and remained in the employ of the Silver Queen Company for 12 months. Leaving that company's employ to erect the machinery for the Adelaide Silver Mining Company, Dundas.
Mr. Bradshaw was there until the mine closed down and in 1896 he found himself working in the machine shops of the Mount Lyell Company and also assisting in the erection of the converting plant.
His abilities were recognised by the company, who appointed him engineer in charge of their machine ships in November 1897.
He was a member of the Queenstown Town Board from 1898. In 1897 he married Miss Arnett, daughter of the late Simon Arnett, council clerk for many years for the municipality of Bothwell.
He also was having his property sold for non-payment of interest
They were married in 1857, and lived at Bridgewater. Jemima died in 1899, and James died in 1906.
Life at New Norfolk
Between the years of 1815 and 1830 William Bradshaw supplied meats to the colony. He also was granted several blocks of land.
He farmed around the New Norfolk area, and grew crops (hops).
In 1819 William was the licensee of the "Jolly Sailor" hotel in Campbell Street, Hobart, near the Prisoners Barracks.
It is just possible that this pub was the forerunner to the "royal Exchange Hotel" which was first licensed in 1860 and is located on the corner of Campbell and Bathurst Streets Hobart.
In 1842 he purchased 640 acres at Monmouth for £161 . His brother Thomas also purchased at the same time.
The lots were purchased from William Henry Windsor of Hobart Town.
Unfortunately he must have fallen upon hard times, as he died in 1859, and in 1860 was listed as being insolvent.
His wife Mary Jane placed ads in the press in 1860, advising that she was the only person with the authority to sell her horse, and she referred to it being at Lions Inn Jerusalem at the property of John Bradshaw, which must be her son.
The advertisement stated she lived at Hodge Farm New Norfolk.
Marriage of Jemima Bradshaw and James Bruce. Their daughter died of burns.