This is a possibility


Australia Death Index, 1787-1985 about George C Aitken
Name: George C Aitken
Death Date: 1892
Death Place: New South Wales
Father's Name: John
Mother's Name: Mabel
Registration Year: 1892
Registration Place: Paddington, New South Wales
Registration number: 10365

you may need to get a copy to find out if it's the right George C. it will aslo give you more information.

DEATH.

Name: George Morehead AITKEN.
Died: 1938 Sydney, New South Wales.
Father: George Cruickshank.
Mother: Mary.
Ref: Registry of Deaths, New South Wales. Reg #408/1938.

No birth located for George Morehead AITKEN or AITKIN in New South Wales but George and Mary were living in Sydney by 1864 where they had another two daughters named Alberta A (1864) and Fanny I (1867).

I have the same death for George C AITKEN as asheppard. The death certificate may give a few more details regarding George's wife Mary and names of children.

Possible birth for George Morehead AITKEN.

Name: George AITKIN.
Born: 23 January 1846, Tasmania.
Father: George AITKIN.
Mother: Mary KEVELL.
Ref: Registry of Births, Tasmania. Reg #1814.

Would have been good if second given names were recorded for the two George's, but we cannot expect everything to be that easy.

I also noticed George Morehead AITKIN never used his second given name when married.

Groom: George AITKEN.
Groom: Louisa Sarah Ann MANN.
Year married: 1870.
Place: Morpeth district, New South Wales.
Ref: Registry of Marriages, New South Wales. Reg #2709/1870.

I could not locate the marriage for George AITKIN and Mary KEVELL in Tasmania so they may have been married before they arrived.

Typo error.
Bride: Louisa Sarah Ann MANN.
As always I noticed my error after I hit Submit Responce.

Tonkin - is it Albert A Aitkin or Alberta??

I found Albert A Aitkin b1864 Sydney and a marriage for Albert A Aitkin

NSW BMD Marriage
467/1884 AITKIN ALBERT A LEA DEBORAH M SYDNEY

George Cruickshank Aitken was sued by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company in 1872 and became insolvent.
NSW State Records - Insolvency Index
AITKEN George Cruickshank - - Shellharbor, Storekeeper 19/03/1872
FILENUMBER: 10992
I can't put my hand on the story at the moment so not sure if I have these facts right but apparently he and his brother James had some financial dealings and George signed a promisory note for ?18 to his brother and then the George went to gaol for stealing a letter so the note wasn't paid and George went broke.

Well I almost had it right! except I blamed the brother.
Here's one account of the case:
John Larkins was indicted for that he, at Kiama, on the 4th of April, 1872, did make a false affidavit before Mr. William Connell, a Commissioner of Affidavits, thereby committing wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. W. J. Foster prosecuted for the Crown. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Pilcher, instructed by Mr. W.Thurlow.
This case arose out of something done by the prisoner during an action upon a promissory-note on certain common grounds. A storekeeper, named George Aitken, had, it appeared, some dealings with the accused, and accused had (it was admitted) given to Aitken two promisory notes in repect of claims that had accrued between them. According to the case for the prisoner, the two notes were taken up and paid for by him, in cash, before they became due ; but according to George Aitken and his brother John, the liability was continued, the notes being only "renewed" and put into one, representing ?18. The prisoner totally denied all knowledge of this third note for the ?18, and utterly repudiated the obliga tion it was supposed to represent. The story of George Aitken was that, on the promissory note for the ?18 afterwaids becoming duo, and when an action was thereupon brought by Messrs. Ewen and Whiting-trus- tees of the estate of a man named Andrew Smellie, the person originally interested in the (third) promissory note -the prisoner resisted the claim proferred as for Smellie,
and put in an affidavit verifying (as by the law he was j bound to do) the nature of the plea he then made. In the affidavit then made by Larkins, in April last, before Mr. Connell (commissioner of affidavits and duly recorded, the prisoner swore, it was allowed, wilfully and falsely that he never had drawn such a promissory note at all as was then sued upon. The Crown called evidence to prove its case as against the prisoner; first to show what had been sworn to by him, and secondly, evidence which should go to show that what had been so sworn by the prisoner was wholly untrue. The witnesses called by the Crown in making out the case against the prisoner were sergeant Michael Costello, senior-constable Dale, sergeant Atwell, senior-sergeant Minter, Mr W. Hellyer, Mr. George Martin (of the Central Police Office), Mr. Robort Owen, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, Mr. John Aitken, Mr. Connell, and Mr. George Aitken. The facts of the case as disclosed against the prisoner were pretty clearly sustained as to the swearing of the affidavit in which perjury was alleged to have been committed.
But many of the circumstance of this case were rather extraordinary, George Aitken and John Aitken were brothers, shown to have very strong reasons for a bitter enmity against Larkins, inasmuch as it was through the evidence of Larkins that George Aitken had been convicted and imprisoned for stealing a letter, and had consequently and irrevocably lost the position once held by him as a postmaster. It was, however, shown for George Aitken that the whole term of imprisonment had not been carried out against him ; but that he had been pardoned, and had, since regaining his liberty, occupied much of his leisure by proceedings against Larkins. George and John Aitken both swore that they had seen Larkins attach his signature to the ?18 promissory note, Larkins being only a "marksman." The writing of the whole of this promissory note was in the handwriting of George Aitken, and by the signature of " George Aitken " was the presumed signature of Larkins (by mark) verified. Mr. John Aitken did not sign as witness, because, as h said, the note was made out by George Aitken not in his (George Aitken's) own favour, but in that of a
Mr. Smellie. It was made out in Mr Smellie's favour because Smellie had at that time sold a horse and gig to Mr. George Aitken. Mr. Andrew Smellie, a neighbour, and apparently intimate friend of the Aitken family, proved the receipt by him from Georgoe Aitken of the promissory note, said to bave been drawn by Larkins ; and, he also swore that he gave over this note to Messrs. Ewen and Whiting, the asigncee of his estate, thirteen days after the sale of the horse and gig. Smellie swore that he had refused to take the two promissory notes of Larkins (first before mentioned) which had a short time to run, but had distinctly agreed to take in part pay- ment for the horse and gig, one promissory note drawn by Larkins for the amount of the two notes to be represented, ?18. Thus it will be seen that the defence substantially went totally to discredit the bona fide character of the pro- missory note for ?18, and (indirectly) to reflect upon such as had, in the first place, knowingly treated it as a valid document. The prisoner received an excellent character from Dr. Taylor, Dr. Nolan, Mr. Hezlet, and others.
Mr. Pilcher addressed the jury, contending strongly for the presumption of the entire innocence of the accused, and totally discrediting the evidence of the two Aitkens and of Smellie
Mr. Foster replied, defending the witnesses of the Crown specially referred to, from the aspersions sought to cast upon them by the line o defence attempted to be set up. He argued that the ?18 promissory note was clearly a renewal only of the two promissory notes which Larkins had got back into his possession, and contended that there had not been one particle of evidence adduced to show that Larkins had taken these two notes up by paying for them in cash, as was alleged.
His Honor summed up, pointing out every separate link in the evidence of this somewhat intricate case, and showing how that evidence bore upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner.
The jury retired to deliberate, and after an absence of fifteen minutes returned a verdict of not guilty.
The prisoner was discharged from custody.

Hi Janilye, Have just seen your 2013 response on this web site.I thought FTC might have emailed me there was a response to my post but that appears not the case. Sorry for the delay in thanking you for your contribution. George Morehead Aitkin (born Hobart to George and Mary) was in and out of court in NSW, Sydney and Brisbane on many occasions and like his father (George Cruikshank Aitkin) left a string of bankruptcies in his wake. Just wondering if you are related to this interesting branch of the Aitkin's or have any info about them - particularly George C Aitkin and his wife Mary). kind regards Vince Aitkin (Melbourne)