Amelia (Boyd) Sutherland (1856 - 1913)

Born 12 Dec 1856 in New Plymouth, New Zealand

Wife of Robert Sutherland — married 1 Nov 1877 in Whareama, Wairarapa, New Zealand

Wife of Christoffer Marthimius Thorbjorensen — married 26 Jul 1889 in Wellington, New Zealand

Died 7 May 1913 at age 56 in Alicetown, Lower Hutt, New Zealand

Problems/Questions Profile manager: Helen Gadd [send private message]

Biography

Amelia was born on 12 December 1856 at New Plymouth, New Zealand, the daughter of John Fredeick Boyd and Mary Ann Pote. Her mother's maiden name was incorrectly shown as Pearce on her birth certificate.

Her family moved to Wellington in 1858.

Amelia Boyd married Robert Sutherland on 1 November 1877 in the office of the District Registrar, Whareama, Wairarapa. The Registrar was Robert Langdon. Their marriage certificate recorded Robert was a bachelor aged 28 years and a grazier. Amelia was a spinster aged 21 years. Their witnesses were Williamina Sutherland, William Alfred Burling of Woodlands, and Robert Henry Malden of Glencoe.

This couple had two sons. George Robert John Sutherland was born on 7 September 1878 in Wellington and William Francis Donald Sutherland was born on 14 January 1880, his birth registered at Castlepoint.

In 1879 Robert Sutherland was the informant of the death of Jemima Boyd, his sister in law, and was then described as a store keeper of Tinui, Whareama.

Robert abandoned Amelia and their two children in about 1880. Amelia had returned to Wellington were her father and several siblings still resided and Robert went off elsewhere to find work. He never returned.

From the Evening Post dated 18 Jan 1881 Pg 3 - Destitute Persons Ordinance. Frederick Boyd, carter, for whom Mr. Gordon Allan appeared, was summoned to show cause why he should not be compelled to contribute towards the support of his sister, Amelia Sutherland, who was described as being in destitute circumstances. John Boyd, tailor, the woman’s father, attended in answer to a similar summons. The informant said she was a married woman, 25 years of age, her husband having deserted her nine months ago, and the police were unable to trace him. She had two children, and had been maintaining herself during the last few months by means of sewing. The brother said he had a wife and three children, and earned £2 7s 6d weekly. The father also pleaded poverty. His Worship was not satisfied that the informant was entirely destitute, nor that the defendants were able to support her. No doubt, the case of a deserted wife was a very hard one, but there was an institution in the city which was devoted to such cases, to which he must refer the informant. The cases were then dismissed.

In about 1882 Amelia entered into a relationship with Christoffer Thorbjorensen, also known as Johnston.

This couple had four daughters, the youngest born after they were married in 1889. Thea Hendrette or Henrietta Thorb Boyd was born on 28 August 1883, Seva Gustave or Gustava Thorb Boyd on 26 October 1885, Lava Theodora Thorpe Sutherland on 11 September 1888 and Lena Thorbjorensen on 14 October 1889. Christoffer’s name was only registered on Lena’s birth certificate.

It was on the 26 July 1889 Amelia Sutherland married Christoffer Marthimius Thorbjorensen at the Registrar’s Office in Wellington. Their marriage certificate recorded Christoffer was a bachelor aged 31 and a labourer. He was born in Norway, the son of Thorbjoren Thorbjorensen, a mariner and Martha Thorbjorensen nee Christoffersen. Amelia was a widow (widowed about 1881) aged 32. She was born in New Plymouth, the daughter of John Frederick Boyd, a tailor and Mary Ann Boyd nee Shute [should read Pote]. Witnesses were Amelia’s brother William Boyd, a farmer of Feilding and Edith Simpson of Church St, Wellington.

Note: Amelia's maternal grandmother was married to Thomas Shute.

Christoffer died later that year.

From the Evening Post dated 6 Dec 1889 Pg 2 - DEATH. THORBJORENSEN. – On Thursday, 5th Dec., at his residence, St Helier’s Villa, Taranaki-street, after a short and painful illness, Christoffer Marthimius Thorbjorensen, dearly beloved husband of Amelia Thorbjorensen; aged 31 years. Deeply regretted.

And from the Evening Post 7 Dec 1889 Pg 3 - FUNERAL NOTICE. The Friends of the late Christoffer Marthimius Thorbjorensen are respectively invited to attend his funeral, which will leave his late residence, Taranaki-street, To-morrow, Sunday, 8th December, at 2 o’clock. E. Morris, Jun., Undertaker, Taranaki-street.

From The Evening Post dated 26 February 1892 Pg 3 - Romance in Real Life. This morning a case with some rather unusual features came before Mr. Graham, R. M., in the Magistrate’s Court. Mrs. Amelia Johnston, apparently not more than 30 years of age, appeared in support of a summons which she had obtained, calling upon Robert Sutherland, described as a stationholder at Ohanga, Castle Point, to pay £213 10s, accrued arrears on an order made in 1882 by the late Mr. Hardcastle, R. M. at Wanganui. Mr. E. P. Bunny appeared for Mrs. Johnston, and Mr. Brown attended on behalf of Sutherland, who did not appear. The plaintiff’s statement was that late in the “seventies” she married Sutherland, who deserted her after she had borne him two boys. In 1882 she put her case before Mr. Hardcastle, R. M., and Sutherland was ordered to pay 5s per week for each child. Some time afterwards, she was informed that Sutherland was dead, and in the full belief that such was the case she contracted a marriage with a man named Johnston, who has since died. A few weeks ago she learned that her first husband was still living, and thereupon she began the present proceedings. Mrs. Johnston further stated that prior to being informed that Sutherland was dead she took steps to obtain a divorce from him. The citation was actually served, but the proceedings were abandoned, simply because she understood Sutherland had died. But, strange to say, while the suit was still in the initiatory state in the Supreme Court, the Police Court officials were refusing to receive moneys from Sutherland pending the decision of the petition for divorce. Mr. Brown, on behalf of the defendant, applied for an adjournment of the case till the 18th prox., in order to enable him to produce certain witnesses who might refute Mrs. Johnston’s statement. The application was granted on the payment of the costs of the day.

1 April 1892 Pg 2 - A Curious Case. The case of Johnson v. Sutherland previously referred to in our column under the heading “A Romance in Real Life,” came before the Court again. Upon the case being called on, Mr. Skerrett, who appeared for the complainant [should read respondent], stated that he desired to have an expression of opinion from the Bench as to whether in the face of certain facts surrounding the case, the Court would be likely to make an order for the arrears sued for. He proceeded to state that the parties had been married many years ago, and in 1881 Mrs. Sutherland, alleging desertion on the part of her husband, had laid a complaint against him for failing to maintain her, and had obtained an order. The defendant complied with the order for a year or two, but ceased to do so in consequence of certain divorce proceedings instituted by the complainant. These proceedings were suddenly abandoned, and the complainant married a man of the name of Johnson, and had issue by the marriage. The second husband died, and now, ten years after the original order was made, the complainant attempted to recover arrears for two children to date, and for herself up to the time of her second marriage. Mr. Skerrett produced an agreement entered into with Mr. Bunny, complainant’s counsel, under which, upon payment of a sum of £50 and costs, and an undertaking on the part of Sutherland to support the children, the complainant should discharge him from all liability under the order and all further liability for maintenance. Mr. Skerrett proceeded to explain that this agreement had been previously approved of by the respective parties, but now the complainant refused to abide by its terms, and sought to proceed with the complaint. Mr. Bunny explained to the Court that the facts as represented by Mr. Skerrett were substantially correct, but in order to clear his client from any stigma, it was only fair to state her second marriage was entered into in the bona fide belief that Sutherland was dead. He recognized the fact that the case presented certain technical difficulties which might proclude [as written] the complainant from recovering, and it was because of that that he had advised a settlement for the sum of £50 and costs, which at the time his client appeared to approve of. She was now taking exception to the stipulation that Sutherland was to be discharged from further liabilities. The other part of the agreement she was prepared to ratify. His Worship said he must not be understood to be speaking ex cathedra, but he thought that the case bristled with so many difficulties which might make it doubtful as to whether the order could be enforced, and he advised the parties to take an adjournment, in order to arrive at an agreement if possible, remarking at the same time that payment of a sum like £50 was often better than an order for small instalments which it might be difficult to enforce.

2 Apr 1892 Pg 2 - The case of Sutherland v. Sutherland, which was referred to yesterday, came before the Resident Magistrate again to-day. With the consent of the solicitors in this case (Messrs. Skerrett and Bunny) Mr. Kenny, R.M., rescinded the order made at Wanganui some years ago, under which the defendant, Robert Sutherland, was compelled to pay 10s a week towards the support of his wife and 5s towards that of each of his two children. It was understood that the parties had arrived at a satisfactory settlement of the matters in dispute.

29 Jan 1896 Pg 2 - A Curious Point. Robert Sutherland was charged with having deserted his wife under peculiar circumstances. The facts were admitted, and were that on Sutherland deserting his wife she instituted divorce proceedings. Then, hearing that her husband had died, the wife lived with, and afterwards married, another man. By this second husband she had had children. This man had since died, and the wife learned that her first husband was still in the land of the living. She thereupon sought to recover support from her real husband on the ground that she was s destitute person. The question was whether, though the husband was not at common law liable to support her, she having technically committed adultery, he was liable under the Destitute Persons Act to contribute towards her support, she being a destitute person. Mr. Skerrett appeared for the husband, and Dr. Findlay for the wife. His worship intimated that he would give judgment on Friday next.

31 Jan 1896 Pg 2 - In the case of Robert Sutherland, charged with having deserted his wife – who meanwhile had married and lived with another man, in the belief that Sutherland was dead – his Worship intimated that he would have to make an order for maintenance, but would formally defer judgment for a week in order that the defendant’s circumstances might be ascertained. It is understood that Mr. Skerrett, who appeared for the defendant, will appeal. Dr. Findlay appeared for the wife, who, it will be remembered was formally unrepresented, but for whom Mr. Skerrett took steps to get a solicitor to act, in order that the point upon which the case turned might be argued.

2 March 1896 Pg 2 - In the Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr. J. C. Martin, S. M., [unrelated case then] Robert Sutherland was ordered to find two sureties of £100 each that he would provide for the maintenance of his wife. Dr. Findlay appeared for the complainant.

19 Aug 1896 Pg 6 - Husband and Wife. A Peculiar Case. In the Banco Court this morning, before Mr. Justice Edwards, argument and evidence were taken in a case in which Robert Sutherland, sheep-farmer, appeals against an order made by Mr. Martin, S.M. directing him to pay 20s a week towards the support of his wife, Amelia Sutherland. The grounds of the appeal are – That the complaint under the Destitute Persons Act, whereon the maintenance order was made, was never served upon the husband and that he gave no authority to any person to accept service or to appear on his behalf. 2. That without any authority from the husband facts were admitted at the hearing of the complaint which the husband absolutely denies. Mr. Skerrett appears for the appellant, and Dr. Findlay for the respondent. The respondent, examined by Dr. Findlay, deposed that she was married to Robert Sutherland at Whakataki, East Coast, in 1877, her husband at that time being an owner of a station at Glencoe, near Castlepoint. After a time they came to Wellington, and lived here for seven or eight months. Her husband told her he had sold Glencoe station for £22.000. After leaving Wellington she and her husband lived at Tenui for six or seven months. Her husband was in business there, and lost a considerable sum of money. Subsequently they lived at Whakataki for six weeks. She then came back to Wellington, and her husband went away to Wanganui in 1880 to look at a station. She never saw him again until four years ago. After he went to Wanganui she tried to communicate with him, but received no replies to her letters. After some time she started divorce proceedings, but abandoned them on being informed that her husband was dead. Feeling certain that Sutherland was dead she married a man named Johnson, and had had four children by him. Johnson died, and soon afterwards she found that Sutherland was still alive. He the paid her £50, all of which had since been expended. Subsequently a maintenance order was issued against Sutherland. She was not now in a good state of health. She had been destitute for a long period of time, and was in receipt of relief from the Benevolent Trustees. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett, the witness stated that it never occurred to her before she married Johnson to enquire of the police at Whakataki as to whether her husband was alive. When Sutherland left her in 1880 he and she were on excellent terms. The eldest of the four children she had had by Johnson was eleven years old, and the youngest seven. She was surprised to learn now that Sutherland had been living in the Hawkes Bay district ever since 1880. Her brothers were willing to support the children by Johnson. George Sutherland, son of the appellant and respondent, gave evidence that his father owned a station at Inland Patea, and employed four or five men all the year round. The appellant deposed that during the 21/2 years he lived with his wife he had had an interest in a sheep run at Tenui, and on leaving it he received £1500, which he invested in a store in the district. In 1880 his wife wanted to live in Wellington, and giving her some money he went to Patea, where he got a billet as stockman at £80 a year and food. After he had been there some time he was arrested, brought down to Wanganui, and an order made against him for maintenance of his wife. He was now in partnership with the natives at Inland Patea. There were two mortgages on the sheep and cattle, and it took him all his time to find the interest. He put no money into the partnership. If the order of the Magistrate was enforced he would have to go to gaol, as he could not find securities. There were on the estate 13,000 or 14,000 sheep, and a number of head of cattle. The mortgages were for £6000 and £4500. The land and buildings belonged to the Maoris. He was now living with a Maori woman, by whom he had had two children. She was one of the owners of the land. When he was served with a divorce petition he instructed a lawyer in Napier to defend the action, and he was very much surprised when he found his wife had abandoned the proceedings. Mr. Skerrett submitted that Mrs. Sutherland must have been aware when she married Johnson that Sutherland was still alive. It could not be maintained, he said, that the conduct of the husband in leaving his wife in 1880 was responsible for her conduct in 1885. His Honour said he must hold that a man who deserted a young wife was morally responsible for her subsequent conduct. Mr. Skerrett said he was not attempting to defend his client’s conduct in leaving his wife in 1880. He submitted that a husband could not be compelled to support a wife who had acted as the respondent had done. Dr. Findlay, for the respondent, in reply, said that his learned friend had not disproved the fact that the wife was destitute, nor had he proved that the husband was unable to obey the maintenance order, and under those circumstances the order must be enforced. The desertion of the husband was inexcusable. In consequence of his desertion the wife became destitute, and the Magistrate was justified in making an order against him. He maintained that the commission of adultery by Mrs. Sutherland, if it were proved, was no defence by the husband. If adultery had been committed there had been condonation by the husband when he learned that his wife had gone through the form of marriage with Johnson. His Honour said that as the case was one of considerable importance he would take time to consider his decision.

25 Aug 1896 Pg 6 - The Sutherland Maintenance Case. Mrs Sutherland Held to have Re-married Innocently. Judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards this morning in the case in which Robert Sutherland, sheep farmer, of Inland Patea, appealed against an order of the Magistrate’s Court for a contribution of 20s a week towards the support of his wife. The case was reported in our columns last week. The parties were married at Tenui in 1877. Two years and a half after the marriage the husband went away to Wanganui, and he was not seen again by Mrs. Sutherland until four years ago. According to her story she, believing he was dead, married a man named Johnson, who died after they had been living together for a few years. Just after Johnson’s death she found that Sutherland was alive, and she obtained a maintenance order against him. Sutherland stated that he had been living at Inland Patea for many years, and was now consorting with a Maori woman. His Honour held that the appellant was now, and always had been, well able to contribute the amount ordered by the Magistrate. He was satisfied that the wife honestly believed her husband (Sutherland) was dead before she married Johnson. In the present case he was satisfied that any misconduct on the part of the wife had been occasioned by the heartless and cruel conduct of the appellant in deserting her and her infant children. The case showed the wisdom of the Legislature in throwing upon persons guilty of such a breach of their legal and moral duties the liability of still maintaining their wives, even where such wives had themselves been guilty of immorality. The appeal was dismissed, with £10 10s costs. Mr. Skerrett was for the appellant, and Dr. Findlay for the respondent.

20 Nov 1896 Pg 4 - The usual crop of holiday inebriates appeared before the Stipendiary Magistrate this morning. Five of them were treated as first offenders. [Three other cases then] Robert Sutherland was ordered to find two sureties of £50 each that in future he would comply with an order of the Court for the maintenance of his wife, or in default to undergo three months imprisonment. Dr. Findlay appeared for the complainant.

26 Apr 1899 Pg 5 - A large number of cases under the Destitute Persons Act came before Mr. Kenny, S.M., this morning. Robert Sutherland was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for disobeying an order of the Court to support his wife, [continues on about an unrelated case].

7 Dec 1900 Pg 5 - Magistrate’s Court. (Before Mr. Haselden, S.M.) Robert Sutherland, charged with having disobeyed an order for the support of his wife, was sent to gaol for three months with hard labour. Mr. Dalziell appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Luckie for the defendant.

21 Oct 1901 Pg 4 - Some maintenance cases came before the Stipendiary Magistrate this morning. [One unrelated case then] Robert Sutherland, a shepherd, earning £1 1s a week, was charged with failing to obey an order for the support of his wife. He undertook to pay 7s 6d per week, and an order was made accordingly, with penalty.

9 May 1903 Pg 5 - The following fixtures were made by Mr. Justice Edwards this morning for the civil sittings of the Supreme Court, the list for which was published last night: - [included is] In divorce: Sutherland v. Sutherland 13 May.

3 May 1903 Pg 6 - Mr Dalziel, for petitioner in Amelia Sutherland v. Robert Sutherland, said the case was undefended, and it was improbable that it would be proceeded with. He asked for an adjournment sine die. This was granted.

15 Aug 1903 Pg 6 - The following cases are set down for hearing in the Divorce Court, before a Judge alone: - Amelia Sutherland v. Robert Sutherland [and 7 others].

12 May 1904 Pg 6 - A Strange Life History. “A very peculiar case,” was the expression of opinion passed by Mr Justice Cooper this morning in granting a decree nisi in the Divorce Court on the petition by Amelia Sutherland, wife of Robert Sutherland, sheep-farmer, Upper Mohaka, Hawke’s Bay. The evidence went to show a remarkable life-story. The parties were married in 1877. Desertion followed three and a-half years later, since which time they have not lived together. Sutherland left his wife with two infant boys. He gave no reason for leaving her. There was another woman in the case. Orders of maintenance had been obtained, but they had been ignored, with the result that respondent had served three terms in gaol for disobeying orders of the court. Mrs Sutherland gave instructions at Wanganui for the institution of divorce proceedings 14 years ago, but they were stopped, as her solicitor informed her her husband was dead. A short time afterwards she married again, her second husband dying about a year later. Subsequent to her second husband’s death she learned that Sutherland was not dead. On verifying this news she communicated with him. He undertook to look after his two sons. This promise he did not keep. Petitioner’s counsel (Mr D. M. Findlay) said Sutherland owed his wife about £500 in payments of expenses due. The eldest son, who gave evidence, said on one occasion Sutherland, when visiting Wellington some nine years ago, offered witness a job as fleece-picker on his station. Witness did not know his employer was his father until the shepherds on the station told him. He saw his father five years ago, when the latter got witness a job near his station. Witness’ father was then living with a Maori woman. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lowest scale, to be paid by respondent.

In the 1908 and 1911 electoral rolls Amelia and son William were living at Hataitai Rd, Wellington.

Amelia Sutherland died on 7 May 1913 at Alicetown, Lower Hutt aged 56 years of chronic nephritis - some years. Oddly her marital status on her death certificate was shown as married. Her death certificate further recorded her parents as John Frederick Boyd, a tailor, and Mary Ann Boyd nee Chote [sic]. She had married Robert Sutherland in Wellington aged 21. There was no mention of her relationship with Thorbjorensen. Living issue at the time of her death were her sons aged 35, 33 and daughters aged 29, 27, 24 and 23 years.

Amelia was interred at Taita Cemetery on 9 May 1913. The Presbyterian minister James McCain officiated at her funeral.

From The Evening Post dated 7 May 1913 Pg - DEATH. SUTHERLAND – On the 7th May, at the residence of her daughter (Mrs. Phillips, Central-terrace, Lower Hutt), Amelia Sutherland, in her 56th year. At rest.

19 May 1913 Pg 1 - DEATHS. SUTHERLAND. – On the 7th May, at Alicetown, Amelia Sutherland, beloved daughter of the late John Boyd, tailor, Wellington; aged 56 years. At rest. Masterton papers please copy.

7 May 1914 Pg 1- IN MEMORIAM. SUTHERLAND. – In memory of our dear mother, Amelia Sutherland, who passed away on the 7th May, 1913. As the ivy clings to the oak, So our memory clings to thee. Inserted by loving son and daughter, George and Ethel.

Also - SUTHERLAND. – In loving memory of Amelia Sutherland, who departed this life on the 7th May, 1913. Long days and nights she bore in pain, To wait for cure was all in vain. God willed it so and thought it best, To take her to His home of rest. Inserted by her loving daughters, Thea, Seva, Lava, Lena.

7 May 1915 Pg 1 - IN MEMORIAM. SUTHERLAND. – In loving memory of our dear mother, Amelia Sutherland, who died on the 7th May, 1913. In memory, pride is more than gold, A mother’s worth cannot be told; Her loved ones now, who miss her here, Will always find her memory dear. Inserted by her loving daughters, Thea, Seva, Lova [sic], and Lena.

8 May 1915 Pg 1 - IN MEMORIAM. SUTHERLAND – In memory of my dear mother, Amelia Sutherland, who died on the 7th May, 1913. Although forgotten by some she may be, The earth that enshrouds her is sacred to me. Inserted by her loving son and daughter, George and Ethel.