I prefer not to rush things regarding the land records of John Bangle as I still have some dots to connect, so I thought it would be a good idea to present to you the second wife of John Bangle in the meantime.
His first wife, Josephte Allaire, died on January 18, 1795, in Terrebonne. The next proof of John’s actions goes as follows:
John Bengille Cooper & Lizette Cuvive spinster both of the Parish of Terrebonne & both of age with the consent of the parents on both sides after publication of Banns were joined together in marriage in Presence of William Devale uncle to the Bride & Mrs. Mary Young this eighth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety sixth.
(signed) M Young (signed) To. Young, Min.
The Parties & the uncle of Bride all declared they did not know How to sign.
(signed) T. Y.”
I just have one thing to say: Thank God that uncle was there because I wonder if we would ever have gotten any proof of the identity of that Lizette.
William Devale was in fact Guillaume Duval. As Lizette was said to be from Terrebonne, researchers who work on this long before me established that Lizette was Marie-Louise Couvillon, baptized March 6, 1771. Her parents were Jean-Baptiste Couvillon and Françoise Duval who had a brother named Guillaume.
After his marriage to Marie-Louise, John Bangle was next found in the town of Sorel. Besides, the last act concerning John which was notarized in Terrebonne was from 1797 as three subsequent acts mentioned him as being “absent”: in 1799 (his father’s will); in 1801 (when his mother sells John’s land in his name); and in 1803.
Thanks to John’s marriage to Marie-Louise Couvillon, we were able to learn that he also went by the surnames of Devis or Davis (his mother’s maiden name). In an 1800 church record in respect of the first marriage of Louis Couvillon (Marie-Louise’s brother), “Jean-Baptiste Devis” is referred to as the brother-in-law of the groom. Moreover, in an 1803 church record regarding Louis’ second marriage, we even get more precious information: Louis’ dit name is Lacroix, he is a cooper from Sorel and again, his brother-in-law, “Jean Devis” is attending the ceremony.
In 1809, a contract passed before Public Notary Henry Crebassa indicates that Louis Couvillon and “Jean Bingle” are both master cooper; the first one residing in the Prescott Concession, in the Seigniory of Sorel, and the other one, in William-Henry (the village of Sorel).
In 1815, in the marriage contract of Françoise Ocoin and Jacob Smith (Catherine Bangle Schmidt’s son), “John Bingle” is identified as being the maternal uncle, the signature at the end of the contract being “John Davis”’.
All that being said, we still do not know if John and Marie-Louise ever had any children. If they did, there are no traces of same in church records so far.
I anticipate your next question: what happened to Marie-Catherine and Marie-Dorothée, born respectively in 1786 and 1789 from John’s previous marriage with Josephte Allaire? Well, we don’t know.
We did find marriage documents in Sorel for two of John’s daughters though:
- On January 26, 1801, at Saint-Pierre’s Catholic Church of Sorel, Marie Devis, minor daughter of Jean-Baptiste Devis and Louise Duval, married Joseph Fontaine, blacksmith, minor son of Joseph Fontaine and Marie Royer (Jean-Baptiste Devis was there but did not sign).
- On January 7, 1810, at Anglican’s Christ Church of Sorel, Mary Bingle married William Hogan, a private in His Majesty’s 49th Regiment, both spinsters of Sorel. One of the witnesses was John Bingle who did not sign. We presumed the latter was the father of the bride.
What clues those two marriage acts provide us? Well, it’s complicated, don’t you think?
First of all, Marie was afterwards known as Josephte. She and Joseph Fontaine had 18 children! So don’t even think that Marie and Mary could be the same person. Josephte was a minor at the time of her marriage so she was born AFTER January 26, 1780. You probably noticed that her mother’s name is Louise Duval. I therefore believe that the priest erroneously entered John’s wife’s name instead of the bride’s mother’s. I do not know why Louise is therein mentioned with her mother’s maiden name.
As for Mary, no hint about her age. But I’ll come back to both of these couples in future posts.
Let’s meet in Terrebonne in two weeks to see what we may learn from the land records of John Bangle.