Sixth Generation

57. Isaac MOWLL was born in 1797 in Dover, Kent, England, United Kingdom.^39,41 He was baptized on 22 November 1797 at Church of St. Mary The Virgin in Dover, Kent, England, Great Britain.⁸⁶ The IGI records that Isaac was born 24th November 1797 and christened on 22 November 1797 (IGI states that index was an extract from actual records). This is probably a transcription error and he was actually born on 22 November 1797 and christened on 24th November 1797 but this has yet to be confirmed.
In 1818 he was a Tile Maker in United Kingdom.⁸⁶ Isaac was deported on 20 November 1818 in Portsmouth, Hampshire, England, United Kingdom.^39,87 aboard the Hibernia having been given a life sentence at Essex Assizes on 20 Jul 1818. Isaac's records show that he never confessed to the crime of which he was charged. There is no record of what the crime actually was, just states 'felony'.
(Information on Isaac's deportation records show a family name of Mole and a surname of Mowle - Possibly clerical errors?).
He arrived in Tasmania, Australia on 11 May 1819 ^39,87 The Hibernia on arrival, was a full rigged ship 430/455 Tons, Capt John Lennon, from Portsmouth Eng 20 Nov 1818
'The Journey' (extract) as reported in the Hobart Town Gazette 15 May 1819
Arrived in the river on Tuesday evening last, the ship Hibernia, Capt. Lennon, bringing 157 male prisoners; the complement embarked having 160, and three having died on the passage. The Hibernia sailed from Portsmouth on the 20 th of November and owing to a series of adverse winds in the channel and again off the coast, her voyage has been unusually long.- Surgeon Superintendant, Charles Carter, Esq. R.N.-Officer commanding the guard Lieutenant Mee, of the 83d Regiment.-Passengers, Rev Mr. Hill, Assistant Chaplain of New South Wales; Mrs Hill; Mr Smith and Family: James Nixon and William Killow, discharged soldiers from the 73d Regiment, with the family of the latter, as settlers.- There were three births on board the Hibernia during the voyage- all boys doing well.
One hundred and five male prisoners were landed this morning from the ship Hibernia, and were chiefly distributed to the settlers Fifty were transhipped on board his Majesty's colonial brig Prince Leopold, destined for port Dairymple. The whole of the prisoners landed without complaint of any kind, and generally healthy.
(The segment goes on to relate the latest news from England)

The 'Deed Poll' (List of convicts at time of departure from England) lists Isaac as one of the 160 convicts on board the Hibernia. He is listed as: Isaac Mowle, one of eleven personal that were convicted at Essex Alsizes on the 20th July 1818 for a term of Life.

The first Muster Roll, Listed on Monday the 10th May 1819 (Obviously written inbound into Hobart on board the Hibernia) lists Isaac as number 30 of 157 convicts and details Isaac as the following: (No) 30, (Name) Isaac Mowles, ( Tried -Where/When) Essex Assize / 20 July 1818. (Sentence) Life, (Age) 20, (Native Place ) Maldon, (Trade or Calling) Tile Maker, (Height-Feet/inches) 5/1, (Colour of eyes/hair) Blue / Brown, (Complexion) Light, (Remarks) Nil.

MUSTER ROLL:
19 July 1819 to 12 July 1835 Isaac's conduct record recorded some 24 breaches of conduct as a convict and received in total 2 reprimands, 150 lashes, 28 days on the wheel, 4 days solitary confinement, 14 days goal and 18 months hard labour. of which 3 months was carried out in chains. These sentences were accrued over a number of offences, which included, being absent from his place of residence, being in a public house drunk, drunk in the street with a pale, neglect of duty and out after hours.
In 1840 he was a Brick Maker in New Norfolk, Tasmania. Australia.^86,87 His occupation was given on the registration papers of his childrens baptism. Name applied for convict permission to marry date place.³⁹ In 1850 Isaac was a Brick Maker.⁸⁶ He died on 9 May 1854 at the age of 57 in New Norfolk, Tasmania. Australia.^39,87 As a result of an assault that occurred on the 27th February 1854, at the home of Isaac Moles, at New Norfolk, Tasmania, his neighbor Ezra Cox was subsequently charged with his murder after he passed away on the 8th May 1854.
The death of Isaac has been a story of history within the Moles family for many years. Research has unveiled a news paper clippings from the Colonial Times detailing the court case of the accused, Ezra Cox. The Cox's lived in what would be known as a detached house next door to the Moles Family in New Norfolk. The accounts of the event as told by the witnesses during the court session makes interesting reading, so the full transcript has been included for both interest and confirmation of the truth of the folk story.
Isaac's Family at the time of the assault consisted of his wife Elizabeth and 6 children: James, age 18, who was a step son to Isaac, Elizabeth age 11, Hannah age 9, Phoebe age 6, Isaac Andrew age 4, and Martha age 7 months.

Here it is as written on the day.

Contents

Part 1 1st Day Supreme Court Hearing Wednesday 31 May 1854.
Part 2 2nd Day Supreme Court Hearing Thursday 1 June 1854

Transcript as reported by the 'Colonial Times and Tasmania, Thursday, June 1 1854

THE MURDER AT NEW NORFOLK

Ezra Cox was charged with the willful murder of Isaac Moles on the 27th February.
Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and handed in to the Judge a paper in which he prayed for a postponement of the trail on account of the absence of his council Mr. Brewer.
The Attorney- General said if the case were put off, it should be postponed to the next Sessions. Mr. Brewer had spoken to him before he went to Launceston, when he (the Attorney - General) promised, if he could, to bring the case on late in the session; but he had since received a communication from Mr. Tarleton, the Police Magistrate of the district, by which he found that Dr. Moore, one of the witnesses, has several critical cases under his care; and he (the Attorney - General) was placed in a position, either to consult the convenience of counsel who had gone to attend the Quarter Session at Launceston, or to risk the lives of others. He had since communicated with Mr. Brewer, and told him he could no longer act as he hoped to be able to do, as Dr. Moore was the only medical man at New Norfolk
It appearing, however, that Mr. Brewer would return to-morrow (Thursday) morning, and Dr. Moore (in reply to his Honor) stating that the lives of his patients would not be endangered by the delay, the trail was postponed until Thursday (this) morning.

A jury was then empanelled.

Jury. - T. Hewitt (foreman), John Smith, E Lipscombe, W. Fisher, D. McPherson, R Shoobridge, T. White, James Newton, Thomas Frodsham, James Livingstone, G. Flexmore, W. McRobie.

……………………………………………………………

Transcript as reported by the 'Colonial Times and Tasmania, Friday, June 2 1854

SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SESSIONS

THURSDAY June 1.

Before His Honor Sir J.L. PEDDER, KNIGHT, CHIEF JUSTICE.

SECOND DAY

NEW NORFOLK MURDER

At the sitting of the Court, Ezra Cox was placed on his trial for the murder of Isaac Moles on the 27th February.
JURY-R. Shoobridge (foreman ), Jeremiah Moore, F.G. Winter, C. Degraves, John Smith, Thomas Frodsham, James Livingstone, D. Macpherson, Caleb Tapping, James Newton, Thomas White, James Norton.
The Court was much crowded during the trial.
Mr. Brewer defended the prisoner.
The Attorney General stated the case, and at the outset expressed the assurance that the jury would give that calm deliberation to the case which its importance and the interests of the public demanded. The prisoner lived at New Norfolk, next to the house occupied by the prosecutor; and he and his wife were upon the worst footing, constantly quarrelling, and to escape the prisoner's violence the wife took refuge in the house of the deceased, and to that cause the tragedy about to be detailed was to be attributed .On the Saturday before the murder they quarreled, and on the Saturday or Sunday night she slept in deceased's house. Prisoner complained to Sheeran, a New Norfolk constable of his wife, and used threats respecting her and deceased. He was much excited, and got under the influence of liquor; and certain parts of the evidence would tend to show prisoner's motives. However, on the Monday afternoon the prisoner and deceased made it up, and became good friends at Mr. Gordon's public house, which they left, under the influence of liquor. The same evening, after deceased went to bed, prisoner's wife came to the house, and five minutes afterwards was followed by her husband; the wife ran into the room where deceased was in bed. Shortly afterwards, prisoner left the house. The wife afterwards also went away. After that, prisoner came to the house again, and forced open the door, being armed with a pick, declaring he would have the lives of the three of them, deceased, his wife, and prisoner's wife. Deceased came out, when prisoner struck him with the pick on the head, which felled him to the ground; he managed to crawl to the table, when prisoner again struck him with the pick several times about the body; and prisoner left the house saying "I've finished one of them." Medical assistance was sent for, and constable Sheeran came to the spot, having heard prisoner use a variety of threats, which would be detailed in evidence. The prisoner was eventually apprehended, and deceased ultimately sunk under the effects of the wounds received, dying in the early part of May. These being the leading facts of the case; the jury would have to determine - first, whether the deceased died from the injuries inflicted by the prisoner; secondly, under what circumstances; and, thirdly, whether under such circumstances, as amounted to murder. The law required that there should be the ingredient of malice. It was a popular error that the malice should be long - cherished before the offence committed; but he would tell them the malice contemplated by the law might be contemporaneous with the act of killing. The law, prima facie, supposed that all homicide was murder, and it was for the accused to show the contrary. But in this case, the threats used by the prisoner, in the morning, and again in the afternoon, were satisfactory proof of his intention. The suspicion entertained by the prisoner of his wife having been harboured by deceased was no justification of the offence. The witnesses would be put into the box, and he (The Attorney - General) would be well satisfied, if the jury, on hearing the evidence, would be well satisfied, if the jury, on hearing the evidence, .should think fit to convict of the minor offence. He would have the advantage of being defended by his learned friend (Mr. Brewer) whose zeal and ability were well known. In conclusion, the learned counsel said the jury would perceive that like the great majority of cases that came before that Court, this was not dissevered from what was so prevalent in the colony, the inordinate use of drink. The deceased was under the influence of liquor; and the prisoner more so; but drunkenness was no excuse for crime. If it were, no one would be safe. He trusted the jury would divest their minds of every thing they might have heard or read of the case; and judge by the evidence. The jury had a duty to perform, a duty to the prisoner, a duty to the crown, and a duty to society; and no doubt they would discharge that duty fearlessly and honestly.
Elizabeth Moles, the widow of deceased, was the first witness examined. Her husband was a brickmaker, and his age 55. The family consisted if six, besides witness and deceased. Witness deposed to hearing prisoner and his wife quarrelling on the Saturday, and the wife sleeping at deceased's house on the Saturday and Sunday nights with witness's two children, in the same room where she and her husband slept. Also to having gone to Gordon's public-house on the Monday for her husband, and hearing prisoner say that if he did not fetch his (Prisoner's) wife out of his house that night, murder would be committed; prisoner went to hit her husband at the same time. Her husband said his wife was not at his house, and told him not to be a fool. Prisoner said he would have three lives that night; hers, her husband's and his wife and he would "die on gallows like a man" Her husband was neither drunk nor sober; and prisoner was also a little in liquor. Her husband got home about eight o'clock; when, after having his supper, he went to bed. She also deposed to prisoner's coming to her house afterwards, going away, and returning as follows:- Prisoner came to the house, knocked with a pick-axe, burst open the door, lock and all off. I called out "In the name of God, Cox what do you mean?" he gave me a hit on the back and knocked me against the table saying, "I mean murder, and murder I'll have." At that time he referred to no particular persons. I screamed out, and all my children screamed out; my husband jumped out of bed in his night-cap; the door was closed; I ran in to the bedroom with my child in my arms. No one was there bedsides my husband; the prisoner's wife had been in my house, but she was gone at this time. My husband went out from the bedroom, the prisoner standing against the door with the pick-axe in his hand; he knocked my husband down by a blow with it on the head. I saw the blow actually struck, on the right side of the head; a violent blow; can't say whether he held it in both hands or one, nor exactly with what part of the pick the blow was inflicted; he had hold of the handle; my husband fell down, and the blood flowed from his head; during the time he was lying down prisoner hit him three times about the body. My husband got on his hands and knees as well as he could on to a chair; he leant his head on a table and said, "Cox I never done you no harm." Whilst on the chair, prisoner hit deceased with the pick-axe twice. I ran out the doors then, with the child in my arms ,and went to my next door neighbour, calling out, but they were all abed and asleep, and none of them came to my assistance. By and bye, Cox came out and said, "You - I've finished you now!'' I went in and put the handkerchief off my neck on to the wound in my husband's head, the floor was all smothered with blood. I screamed out and the constables and Dr. Moore came down to my house. Dr. Moore dressed the wound. My husband said not a word to prisoner before he struck him on the head, as I have described. (A pick - axe was here produced and identified by the witness as that used by the prisoner.) My husband lived, after this happened, until the 9th May at six at night, having kept his bed and been all attended all the time by Dr. Moore. Mr. Tarleton, the coroner, held an inquest on the body.

By the Judge-Prisoner was not at my house on the day before the Monday, but he was there on the Saturday, and fetched his wife out.

Cross - examined by Mr. Brewer - The prisoner had been away from home up to the Saturday, up the country. On that night and the Sunday following, prisoner slept at my house. A man named Walsh, in the employ of Mr. Anthony Mann, also slept there. I let him one of my rooms. The partition between my house and prisoners is very slight; we can hear in one house what takes place in the other. I had had a candle lighted on the Monday night, but it had burnt out before -prisoner came in. On each occasion when he came in there was no light in either of the rooms. Mrs. Cox came in and took off her bonnet and shawl. She was dressed then, fully. When she went into the bedroom I put the bonnet and shawl underneath the table when I heard prisoner coming. My son and daughter were in the room, and must have seen Mrs. Cox come in and go into the bedroom. At the time Cox broke the door open his wife was not undressed and in bed. That I can swear with a clear conscience. I came home with my husband, from Gordon's public house. I was in Gordon's tap-room. Left prisoner behind when we left the house. My daughter Elizabeth Moles told me Mrs. Cox had left the house when I went to prisoner. She told me on my return that she had gone up the garden. My daughter must have seen Mrs. Cox go into the bed- room. I saw prisoner on the Sunday; he called me and asked where his wife was, he frequently on the Saturday and the Sunday asked if his wife was at my house. I told him no; that was as true as when I told him "no" on the Monday night. I swear she was in the house at night, but not in the day. Walsh was not there on the Monday night. He agreed to take the room for two nights only

Re-examined - Walsh slept on the Saturday and Sunday nights in a room of the back kitchen; between the room and the prisoner's house; I told prisoner a lie on the Monday night, in saying his wife was not there, because she asked me to say so as he was going to murder her.

James Maxfield (sworn) deposed that he was the son of the last witness; on the Monday night his step-father, the deceased, came home between 8 and 9, and went to bed half-an-hour afterwards, but had no supper; nigh upon ten o'clock witness and prisoner's boy went to Gordon's after prisoner; but found him at Mr. Bland's; he come home with them to his own house; he was so drunk he could not walk home by himself. Witness here corroborated his mothers testimony as to prisoner breaking open the door; and the assault on deceased, and that he ran up for the police, and returned, accompanied by constable Sheran.

By his Honor - Deceased had a handkerchief on his head.

Cross examined - When prisoner came, the first time I did not see his wife in the room; she could not have been there without my seeing her if she had been in just before, and taken her bonnet and shawl off, I must have seen it; there was no light there; I swear I did not see Mrs. Cox at all that evening; my mother had been at half-an-hour before my Father came home that night; no one came home with him.

Re-examined -I had been out that evening; was with nobody.

By the Jury - When the door was burst open, I was in the front room; I went outside and could see my step-father come out of his bed-room.

Elizabeth Moles (daughter of deceased, 12 years of age) was next called, and having been questioned by the learned judge as to her knowledge of the obligation of an oath, said she knew Mr. Tarleton the Coroner; a bible was put into her hand before him at the inquest, but she could not say why. His honor said he could not allow the child to be examined, not appearing to have sufficient knowledge.

Constable Sheeran was then sworn , and said that on the morning of the Monday, about half-past 10 he say prisoner in High-street New Norfolk. He asked to take his wife in charge for being away from her authorized place of residence on the Saturday and Sunday nights. Witness refused as she had reported herself to him at the watch-house on Saturday night. He then said she had taken a pound weight of gold from him. Witness said he take her in charge for that; he said never mind, and asked where she was going to stop; witness told him at Moles'. He replied "I'll get a broad axe and kill the three - my wife. And Moles, and his wife - for harbouring her; and when I've killed the three I'll go to the gallows like a man." Witness cautioned him to beware what he was doing. Prisoner then went into the skittle ground of the Golden Lion. Saw him again about two o'clock in Church street he appeared to be quite excited and had been drinking. He said his wife was locked up in a room where a man named Phelan lived, in a house belonging to Lupton. He wanted witness to go with him, and said he would get an axe and break her head open. Witness refused to go as he knew the wife was not there. Prisoner then went back to James's skittle ground. He made no reference to Moles's. Next saw him between 9 and 10 o'clock. Had received information of the murder, and went to the house; on getting near, he heard prisoner say "I've put one wretch out of the way, and if I could have found the axe, I'd have killed the other two." He then went into the house and saw the deceased on the chair, bleeding. Afterwards apprehended prisoner. When witness went in he seemed to be a man quite insane, and said "Come in, I'll just serve you as I served Moles." Heard something like the cocking of a musket. Constable Jones was with witness. A candle was lit, and they took him in charge. Afterwards found the axe produced, on which he observed several spots of blood. When apprehended prisoner said, all he was sorry for was that he had not killed the other two, and then "he would go to the gallows like a man." He was much excited, quite beyond himself, as if he had lost his reason.

By the judge - Bland's is not a public house.

Cross - examined - When I saw him in the morning he was perfectly sober, but excited. He added that Moles and his wife were ruination of his wife; I met prisoner's wife, when I went to the house half-dressed; she looked as if she had just got out of bed; this was 300 yards from the house. The prisoner's wife is in cascade Factory; she was sent there after the prisoner was in gaol on this charge. I charged her with keeping a common brothel; in point of fact she was found in bed with a strange man; I know Walsh, a ticket-of -leave man; don't know if he registered his residence at Moles's for the three days; I have known prisoner four years.

Re-examined _ It was three weeks after the 27th February that prisoner's wife was sent to the factory.

By the Court _ Prisoner might have been a week away before the Saturday; his wife's registered residence was at the prisoner's house.

Edward Gordon. Licensed victualler. Deposed to have heard an altercation in his tap-room at two o'clock on the Monday, between deceased and prisoner, about deceased having harboured his wife, when prisoner said he would kill his wife, or any one that harboured her. The two were at witness's house afterwards, and deceased drank a glass of half and half at prisoners expence, prisoner telling him not to harbour his wife any more, or it would be a bad job for both him and her. Moles said he would not harbour her any more. They parted good friends. When prisoner left the house that evening he was he worse for liquor, but not excited.

By the court - The poor man Moles passed the greater part of the day at my house.

His Honor - Now I'll tell you what, sir, I have made a rule where I find a publican allowing people to spend their time in his house like this not to allow his expences, and I'll do the same in your case.

The Attorney-General here put in a deposition taken before Mr. Tarleton, on the 16thMarch, made by the deceased which was read by the clerk of the court, the preliminaries having been admitted by prisoner's council.

The statement was much to the same effect as proved by the other witnesses; with the exception that he stated prisoner's wife was in bed on a stretcher in the same room with him.

Dr. Moore's medical testimony was next taken; the doctor, in consequence of deafness, standing on the floor, and using his hearing trumpet, witness described the nature of the wounds on deceased's head, and on various parts of the body; and stated the results of the post mortem examination; death was caused by compression of -the brain from an abscess on the brain arising from the wound on the head. (The doctor produced some pieces of the bone that had been depressed by the fracture of deceased's skull.) He said he could not account for deceased having lived so long.

By the Court - The larger portion of bone produced was extracted by an operation on the 12 March.

Mr. Brewer addressed the jury for the prisoner, and expressed his sense of the arduous nature of the task he had before him, as he was labouring from a severe cold. It would be futile on his part to do other than admit that from the evidence the deceased met with his death at the hand of the prisoner, He, therefore, proposed to look at the circumstances under which the deceased came by his death, and to review the evidence offered in support of the charge of murder. With reference to Mrs. Moles's statement, it was evident that she had stated respecting Mrs. Cox was a willful and deliberate lie, showing there was something about the facts which she did not want to state. Her evidence was contradicted by Gordon, and the boy Maxfield, as to the deceased being accompanied home from the public-house by herself; and in other respects; for instance, Mrs. Cox coming in just before her husband came, taking of her bonnet and shawl, and telling deceased's wife to deny that she was there, for he was for he was certainly going to murder her. How inconsistent that, if (as was sought to be established) the husband was ill-treating her, and she had to run away for protection, she should have waited to put on her bonnet and shawl! The fact was, it was a fabrication. The prisoner had heard his wife singing inside deceased's house, notwithstanding Moles' promise not again to harbor her. But what was the fact? When he went to the house and broke the door open, what did he see? His wife undressed and in bed in that room, a circumstance corroborated by Sheeran, who met her afterwards, half dressed. She had been in all day long, and there was probability in the husband's suspicions, as proven by her being afterwards committed to the House of Correction for keeping a disorderly house, being taken out of bed where she was found with a strange man; her poor unfortunate husband being at the time in gaol. The evidence was that of a woman who had no regard for truth; and her son was almost in the same category. The prisoner was an orderly, well conducted man, industrious, but of a warm temperament, and excitable; not a drunkard, as alleged by the Attorney-General. The wife was a drunkard and she was morally the murderer of deceased, for she had caused it all. Prisoner had two children, having been before married, and having married his present wife more as a protection to the children. Although but in humble circumstances, that was no reason why he should not be affected by the mis-conduct of his wife. He had the right to the feelings of persons in higher classes, and he was so excited that he was literally driven to a state of madness, it was not the drink; and constable Sheeran stated that when he saw him at night he did not appear drunk. The partition was thin ; he heard what took place between that respectable witness Mrs. Moles, and the man Walsh, a ticket of leave man in the service of Anthony Mann. He knew what was going on- meet at the public-house - accused Moles of it- said if he (Moles) allowed his to go on in this manner, it would not do for him (the prisoner.) The learned council with a good deal of ingenuity, referred to the different points in the evidence, proving that prisoner's wife was undressed and in bed. Now, (continued he), whether prisoner saw Walsh there or not, the circumstances were such as to warrant his suspicions and induce him in the excitement of the moment to do that which would reduce , the offence from murder to manslaughter. And his subsequent Act corroborated the area of his madness. He submitted that upon the whole , the jury might presume , from the fact proved, that there was such a justification of his suspicions as to lead him to act under the influence of an outrages sense of honor; and the circumstances did not amount to murder. He earnestly appealed to the jury to examine carefully the testimony; and if they should find the case came within the rule of manslaughter, he doubted not that they would not have pleasure in returning a verdict accordingly; but should they no feel justified in doing so, he hoped they would append to their verdict a recommendation to mercy.

Mr. James Turnbull, of New Norfolk, gave prisoner an eighteen years character. He was an excitable man, but humane. Witness deposed to prisoner having taken charge of two former children - he had been married to his present wife for fourteen months. On the night of the Monday in question, about 8 o'clock, prisoner came to witness's house much excited, and said his wife was harbored in Moles' house - he believed for the immoral purpose - he had heard singing in the house.

By the Judge. -He did not mention the name of any man she was with.

By the Attorney -General. - Prisoner had been drinking, but was not intoxicated. It was the evening he had heard the singing.

The Attorney -General replied at considerable length.

His Honor then summed up, recapitulating the evidence, and charging that the offence amounted to murder.

The jury after a retirement of ten minutes returned the verdict of GUILTY with a recommendation to mercy, on the grounds of the conduct of the deceased in harboring his wife, and also the character of his wife.
On the prisoner being called up for judgment, he said he was well aware he had not committed murder.

The learned judge said, the jury had found that he had -and his Honor concurred in the verdict, and he was sorry to say so.

He then sentenced him to death and dissection in the usual form, but promised to send the recommendation of the jury to the Executive, with whom he sincerely hoped it would prevail.

The court adjourned at 20 minutes to seven to 10 o'clock on Friday, (This) morning.
………………………………………………….

End of transcript.

Transcript collated by Paul McDonald 5 January 2006

He was buried on 12 May 1854 in New Norfolk, Tasmania. Australia.⁸⁶ Under Coroners Warrant and under the name of Mould! The burial service was performed by John. B. Seaman and Isaac's profession at the time of his death is recorded as Labourer. Isaac was also known as Mowle, Mole, Moles and Mould.⁸⁶ Under Coroners Warrant and under the name of Mould! The burial service was performed by John. B. Seaman and Isaac's profession at the time of his death is recorded as Labourer.

Isaac MOWLL and Elizabeth FERGUSON were married on 4 January 1841 in New Norfolk, Tasmania. Australia.^39,87 at St Matthews. Elizabeth FERGUSON, daughter of David FERGUSON and Elizabeth MCLEAN, was born on 3 January 1814 in Campbeltown, Argyllshire, Scotland, United Kingdom.^86,87 She was deported on 30 December 1835 in London, England, United Kingdom.³⁹ having been charged and found guilty of house breaking in Glasgow. She arrived in Tasmania, Australia on 25 April 1836 ³⁹ (Aboard the ship Arab) Name applied for convict permission to marry date place.³⁹ Name lived date place.⁸⁶

Isaac MOWLL-1545 and Elizabeth FERGUSON-2173 had the following children: