Genea-Musings

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Treasure Chest Thursday - Post 302: 1762 Marriage Records of Moses Smith and Patience Hamant

It's Treasure Chest Thursday - time to look in my digital image files to see what treasures I can find for my family history and genealogy musings.

The treasure today is the 1762 marriage record of Moses Smith and Patience Hamant in the vital record books of Walpole and Medfield, Norfolk County, Massachusetts.

Here is the Walpole vital record book page:

The snippet for the marriage is:

The transcription of this record is:

"SMITH, Moses and Patience Hamment, int., July 17, 1762."

Just above this record is the first marriage of Moses Smith:

"SMITH, Moses and Sarah Clark, Dec. 2, 1756."

The source citation for the Walpole book entry is:

Vital Records of Walpole, Massachusetts to the Year 1850 (Boston, Mass. :New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1902), Marriages, page 174, Moses Smith and Patience Hamment (intentions) entry.

The marriage of Moses and Patience was also recorded in the Medfield vital records book:

The snippet for this record is:

The transcription of this record is:

"SMITH, Moses of Walpole, and Patiance Hammant, Sept. 23, 1762.*"

Note: The asterisk means "Intentions not recorded."

The source citation for the Medfield book record is:

Vital Records of Medfield, Massachusetts to the Year 1850 (Boston, Mass. : New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1903), Marriages, page 173, Moses Smith and Patiance Hammant entry.

Why are there entries in two different books? It is very likely that Moses Smith resided in Walpole and Patience Hamant resided in Medfield at the time of their marriage. It is not uncommon to see Massachusetts marriage records recorded in both towns.

However, the entry in the Walpole book is for their marriage intentions - when they proclaimed to the church members their intention to be married, on 17 July 1762. The actual marriage was on 23 September 1762 in Medfield.

Moses Smith (1732-1806) was first married to Sarah Clark (1731-1761) in 1756 in Walpole, by whom he had two children. Sarah (Clark) Smith died on 16 October 1761 in Walpole.

Moses Smith (1732-1806) and Patience (Hamant) Smith (1731-1780) are my 5th great-grandparents. They had four children including my 4th great-grandfather, Aaron Smith (1765-1841).

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/treasure-chest-thursday-post-302-1762.html

Please comment on this post on the website by clicking the URL above and then the "Comments" link at the bottom of each post. Share it on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or Pinterest using the icons below. Or contact me by email at randy.seaver@gmail.com.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Exploring the 1939 Register of England for Richman Cousins

I noted with pleasure that Findmypast recently included the 1939 Register for England in a member's subscription, rather than being pay-per-view.

While I don't have any ancestors residing in England in 1939, I do have many English cousins who reside there because of my Vaux and Richman 19th century immigrants to the USA. I added several more generations to my RootsMagic database for these families, including many who were alive in 1939, from correspondence with cousins in England and the USA.

For many of these cousins, I have only an approximate birth year based on the cousin's information. I found out that many entries in the 1939 Register have a birth date, but not a birth place. In addition, knowing where they resided in 1939 might be helpful, and knowing their occupation might be interesting.

For instance, my 3rd cousin once removed was Douglas William W. Richman (1901-1985), born and died in Wiltshire, who married Mildred May Chapman (1903-1984), born and died in Wiltshire.

Unfortunately, when I put Douglas Richman into the search field with a 1901 birth date, I received no hits in Wiltshire. I tried Mildred Richman in the search field and a birth date of 1903:

I chose to use "Name Variants" for the name fields.

I clicked on the "Search" button, and saw the search results:

While there were 93 results, the only Mildred Richman was the first entry, and she resided in Trowbridge, Wiltshire. I clicked on the blue "Preview" button:

The entry for Mildred M. Richman gives her birth date as 19 Jan 03, and her husband's names William D.W. Richman. I think this is them - Douglas's name has reversed a first and middle name.

Note the reference number at the bottom of the screen above - this is probably the reference to the file in The National Archives for the original records.

I clicked on the blue "View Original image" button on the screen above, and saw the record page:

From this record, I can see that they resided at 3 Clarendon Gardens, Trowbridge U.D., Wiltshire, England. Here is a summary of the information for these persons:

Mildred M. Richman: a Female, date of birth was 18 Jan 03, Married, Occupation is Unpaid Domestic Duties.

William D.W. Richman: a Male, date of birth was 20 Sep 01, Married, Occupation is Maintenance Engineer, Privinder M..

The record transcription said William Richman's date of birth was ? Sep ?, but the record is very clear as 20 Sep 01.

Do you want a source citation? Here is my effort, using a "Census, U.K./Wales (online images)" template in RootsMagic 7:

1939 Register, Wiltshire, England, Trowbridge, U.D., RG101/7132E/012/17 Letter Code: WRNC, Schedule 152-1, William D.W. Richman entry; digital image, The National Archives, Findmypast Ltd. (http://www.findmypast.com : accessed 24 February 2016).

Next, I wondered "Where did they reside?" The address was 3 Clarendon Gardens in Trowbridge. Further down the transcription page is a map:

This map cannot be zoomed in or moved around, but there is a dropdown menu that says "1937-1961 Ordnance Survey 1:25000 Map," and the dropdown menu has a "Present day map" link:

As you can see, the roads around Trowbridge have changed a bit.

Well, that was fun! The search system is logical and works pretty well. However, there is no real source citation provided by Findmypast, and there should be for folks who want one.

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/exploring-1939-register-of-england-for.html

CeCe Moore Will Present "The Power of DNA" at NSDCGS Seminar on 19 March 2016

The North San Diego County Genealogical Society (NSDCGS) and Carlsbad City Library will host their 2016 Spring Seminar on Saturday, 19 March 2016, from 8:45 a.m. (registration opens) to 3:30 p.m. at the Carlsbad Senior Center, 799 Pine Street, Carlsbad CA 92008.

The seminar speaker will be world-renowned DNA expert CeCe Moore on "The Power of DNA."

CeCe's four talks will be on:

* The Power of DNA: Genetic Genealogy Basics

* Genetic genealogy Case Studies

* I Have My Results: Now What?

* Unexpected Surprises Revealed by DNA Testing

Register early - seating is limited! The fees are:

* NSDCGS Member: $25
* Non-Member: $40
* Lunch (half a turkey sandwich, salad, drink): $10

Make reservations to Jeanette Shiel (jbstree@roadrunner.com), and make checks out to NSDCGS and mail to Jeanette Shiel, 587 Rush Drive, San Marcos CA 92078.

There is more information on the NSDCGS website - see http://nsdcgs.org/event/spring-seminar-2016/.

This should be an excellent seminar!

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/cece-moore-wil-present-power-of-dna-at.html

Going Wild in Cairns - Post 401 of (Not So) Wordless Wednesday

I'm posting old (and sometimes new) family photographs from my collection on Wednesdays, but they won't be wordless posts like others do - I am incapable of having a wordless post.

Here are some of the most precious (to me) images from my Seaver/Leland photograph collection:

In March 2010, we visited Australia, New Zealand and Fiji on a three week Grand Circle Travel Tour to celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary, and I took some photographs with my trusty digital camera.

We flew from San Diego (leaving 7 p.m. Friday, 12 March) to Los Angeles to Sydney to Cairns (arriving 6 p.m. Sunday, about 30 hours total) in early March 2010, and stayed in the Rydges Hotel in Cairns.

1) One of our first day trips on the tour was to Cairns Botanic Gardens:

2) The day trip also visited Hartley's Crocodile Adventures:

We did see some wildlife - here is a koala perched on the back of a handler, Linda got to pet it:

4) And some penned kangaroos waiting to be fed:

Unfortunately, I've lost the memories of all the details of this vacation. Fortunately, I found my Facebook photo albums from 2010 with pictures and some captions so all is not lost. I found that I posted very few photos from this vacation on Genea-Musings.

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/going-wild-in-cairns-post-401-of-not-so.html

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Ancestry.com Quirk - Why Doesn't the Family Column Show Up on This Person Profile?

I spent some time yesterday trying to figure out why the Family list does not show up on my grandfather's profile in my Ancestry Member Tree. Here is a screen shot of the top of the Facts screen for Frederick Walton Seaver (1876-1942) in my tree:

Usually, the Family list is on the right-hand side of the screen above. But only the Facts and Sources columns show on the above screen.

Here is the Facts screen for his wife, Alma Bessie Richmond:

It has three columns - Facts, Sources and Family, as expected. As do over 40,820 other people in this particular tree.

I managed to find one more person profile with this quirk - my father, Frederick Walton Seaver (1911-1983).

My two other Ancestry Member Trees with these persons have the Family column showing.

After I found this, I posted a question on the Ancestry Facebook Group yesterdayabout it. Karen Palmer checked my tree and the Family column was missing for my two persons also. She noted that I had a number of WebTag facts on these two profiles.

Further down the Facts list are the WebTags:

I opened one of them and clicked on the "View" button, and saw:

There was no content in these WebTag Facts.

When I transferred the GEDCOM from RootsMagic to Family Tree Maker in 2014, there was content in the WebTag Facts. I then synced the FTM 2014 tree to a new Ancestry Member Tree in 2014.

So now I'm wondering if the Family column on the Facts list will reappear if I delete all of the WebTag Facts. I think it will.

Thank you, Karen, for recognizing that the WebTags may be the problem here.

=============================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/ancestrycom-quirk-why-doesnt-family.html

Having Fun With Mondays With Myrt

I have enjoyed the weekly Mondays With Myrt Hangouts On Air for about two years now, and look forward to many more years of it. Pat Richley-Erickson (DearMYRTLE) is an excellent hostess and keeps the discussion moving for 90 minutes every week, while Russ Worthington (CousinRuss) keeps the technology rolling and contributes reader comments and his own commentary along with the rest of the panel. For Mondays with Myrt, there are usually 8 to 10 panelists, including Pat and Russ.

These Hangouts On Air are no longer shown live on Google+ on the DearMYRTLE Genealogy Community group. Pat and Russ are now using Business Hangouts for Mondays With Myrt, Wacky Wednesday, Genealogy Game Show and other hangouts. The neat thing about the Business Hangouts is that the chat log is shown beside the video, and is archived with the video.

However, you have to register to view the Hangouts with either Google, Facebook, Linked In or Twitter. even if you want to VIEW the archived hangout. The registration has to be done for each Hangout you wish to VIEW or participate in. If you want to JOIN the panel, then you have to register with a Google account.

DearMYRTLE has created a streamlined process on her DearMYRTLE Hangouts page (http:hangouts.dearmyrtle.com).

By clicking on the "Hangouts" tab on the menu bar, you can register for upcoming or archived Hangouts.

The video Archives for all of Pat's hangouts on on the "Archives" tab next to the "Hangouts" tab. On the screen above, I rolled my mouse over the "Archives" tab and then over the "Mondays With Myrt" to see all of the episodes to date in 2016. I clicked on the last one, for 22 February 2016:

The screen above says "This live event is over. Sign in and watch the replay now." I clicked on the "Google" button and was able to watch the replay of the 22 February episode:

Note that over on the right side of the screen is the chat log that has comments from throughout the 90 minute show. The chat log is keyed to the video by the time stamps, although people do make comments about earlier topics. Comments can be made at any time during or after the live event by clicking on the red plus sign, typing the comment, and clicking Enter.

After the Hangout is over, YouTube renders the video and makes it public when the owner (Pat) tells them to do so. Pat tries to get the YouTube video online within 24 hours of the live event.

You can watch all of Pat's videos on her YouTube Channel -- https://www.youtube.com/user/DearMYRTLE.

Here is the 22 February Mondays With Myrt video:

I usually have something useful to add to the discussion - often it's about late breaking news, or an issue I discussed in a blog post during the week before. In the video above, it was a discussion about the Ancestry Member Tree indexing not including person profiles without sources or with only a name. That discussion starts at about 35 minutes into the Hangout.

So there are opportunities to participate on the panel for these Hangouts, to watch and comment during the live event, and to watch the Hangout after the event either in the Archives or on YouTube.

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/having-fun-with-mondays-with-myrt.html

Reader Comments on "Does the Ancestry Member Tree Index 'Prune' Trees?"

The most popular Genea-Musings post for the last week is Does the Ancestry Member Tree Index "Prune" Trees?, posted 18 February 2016.

There are 14 comments on the post, many of them expressing dissatisfaction with Ancestry's indexing rules of Ancestry Member Trees. Here are some of them:

1) Russ Worthington said: "Interesting dialog. Reading your notes at the end, I had to have a 'hmmm' moment. As our friend, The Legal Genealogist would say 'it depends'.

"I am of two minds on this topic. I agree that there are hints in those undocumented trees that may lead us to what we want to know. But, at the Same time, there are times when I DO want to see a Documented Tree.

"Right now, I do not include Ancestry Member Trees in my Shaky Leaf Hints results.

"I would like to have the OPTION to Turn On the Public Member Tree Hints, BUT Only for those Documented Trees. OR to include those undocumented trees. So, three options would work for me."

and also:

"I was talking to some one from the Ancestry Member Tree staff [at RootsTech], may be the same person that was mentioned, with an Indexing issue on an Ancestry Member Tree that is Public AND Sourced that is not showing up in Search Results.

"He was going to look into my issue, but haven't heard back from him yet. I would have thought that we might have mentioned that to me during our conversation."

2) The DownEast Genealogist opined: "I find this disturbing. I'd be interested to know just when they changed their indexing rules; when I initially posted my tree in late 2014 -- which has no sources attached -- I frequently saw profiles from my own tree in search results. I hadn't thought about it until I read this post, but now I realize it's been quite a while since I got any hits on my own tree.

"I agree with you wholeheartedly that unsourced profiles should be indexed. I didn't add sources to my online tree because I don't use Family Tree Maker (which presumably would have been an easy sync), and I have no idea how my templated Legacy sources would transfer to an Ancestry tree (but probably not very well). I figured I could provide source information to anyone who was interested enough to contact me and ask. But now it appears they will never even see my tree. Guess I'm going to have to rethink my strategy. As it stands now, the only thing my online tree is good for is DNA matches.

"In my opinion, listing an Ancestry Member Tree as a 'source' is completely worthless and should not even be an option, let alone serve as the basis for deciding to index the profile. I'm not interested in how many other trees give the same unsupported 'fact', citing each other in an infinite loop. (I'd give more credence to a citation to personal knowledge or family lore, than to another member tree.)

"To maximize the utility of the member trees, Ancestry should index all profiles, including unsourced ones, but the count of sources in the search results should include only legitimate sources, not other member trees. I want to be able to look at the search results and know that a profile with six sources has real sources, and isn't just citing six other member trees. But I also want to see the unsourced profiles, which have provided useful clues in the past. And I like your suggestion that results be ordered by number of (legitimate) sources."

3) Geolover noted: "The Ancestry representative did not touch on how the new, restrictive indexing protocol applies to AncestryDNA's scheme of showing 'circles' of however distantly supposedly-related persons. Ancestry creates these 'circles' mostly from trees. Are persons with no source attached, from trees, therefore being excluded from the purported matching in 'circles'? Since Ancestry's DNA-matching routine lacks much of any other tool for seeing matches, this could be a thorny issue."

My response: This is a really important point - do the DNA Circles and Hints include unsourced profiles?

4) Bonnie commented: "I have to agree with Ancestry's approach. 'Genealogy without sources is Mythology' is a saying I have to agree with. Maybe when a person sets up a tree without sources it could be set up as an 'unsourced' tree and searched separately as an option. I'd like to see them add a 'tree type' for other purposes too, like mirror trees used by adoptees and 'DNA' trees."

5) Linda Schreiber said: "Bonnie, I fully agree with the concept that 'Genealogy without source is mythology'. But there are a great many people, including me, who have sources, and analyses, more on some people than on others, but do not upload them all to ancestry. Not all are focused entirely on the tree at Ancestry, but mostly work elsewhere. And others want to be *contacted* by people who want the real sources and research rather than just putting it all out there to be 'borrowed'.
The fact that the pseudo-sources of 'copying tree to tree = source' are searchable while the trees clearly labelled as 'Please contact me for source information' are excluded from search results.....
That's a problem, and is actually a serious disservice to subscribers."

6) Bob Coret noted: "I think we all agree that sources add to the quality of a tree. So it's wise to add this as a signal when you index trees, but by not indexing people without sources Ancestry may tackle their indexing problem, but they are not proving their members a service. You should be indexing everything and present the user with a result list where the user can determine the quality of the entries! And maybe add a search option 'Only show sourced entries' (which is off by default)."

7) Barbara added: "I don't like the idea of unsourced names being totally thrown out of the index/search results. I have found many bits of gold in those names & dates without sources. I'd rather see them, analyze them and decide what my next action will be. Not only could they be the stripped tree of a seasoned researcher, but a close family member who had the inside scoop and is unaware of sourcing protocols."

8) M. Diane Rogers offered: "I have many sources for my info - but I'm hoping to get people to contact me so my tree is pretty bare and not too big. Maybe I shouldn't bother with the Ancestry tree. Or I suppose I could make sure that key people in the tree have a source so they get indexed. Before anyone asks, not sure how I'd determine those key people, but I am almost certain I won't be using Ancestry trees as sources for those entries. Trees often provide good clues; I like that part!"

9) Becky wrote: "Here is an example of why leaving unsourced profiles un-indexed is a terrible idea:

"One of my brick walls for years had been the name and identity of my paternal great grandmother. I had a surname with initials and general geographic location and that was it. Searching with this information brought up an individual listed in a few trees, and no sources were attached to this individual...just that she was the daughter of a couple who had numerous other children, all of whom were sourced. I contacted one of the people whose tree she was listed in, and after correspondence she explained that while she had no sources or photos of this woman, she had gotten her information from the "family genealogist". This woman is married to one of the descendants of one of the siblings and I asked if he would donate DNA for me. By my reckoning, if this woman was truly my long lost great grandmother, the DNA test for her sibling's descendant would confirm that we were 3rd cousins, sharing 2xgrGrandparents. Indeed the DNA suggested a 2nd cousin relationship (we are actually 3rd) and subsequent testing of other descendants from this family including 1/2 siblings all confirmed my relationship. In this way I found the identity of my great grandmother.... from an unsourced profile entry on an Ancestry tree that today does not show up in a Search (I tried). Isn't genealogy about finding our lost ancestors? Well the truly lost are never going to show up under Ancestry's new Search parameters. This is a terrible move on Ancestry's part."

My response: This is an excellent example of the value of unsourced profiles and makes the case well for indexing all profiles in all trees.

10) On the 22 February 2016 Mondays With Myrt discussion, Danine Cozzens said: "This sounds like Ancestry programmers making things simpler for 'efficiency' without understanding how genealogists use their fine product."

My response: Yes it does! Excellent comment.

So how do we influence Ancestry.com to do the best thing for ALL genealogists and index ALL Ancestry Member Trees, and list them in search results by some quality measure? I think this happens only by providing more examples from our own research of how unsourced Ancestry trees have solved our research problems. I know that sounds "wrong," but I think it's true.

We also need to know if the Indexing rules prevent unsourced trees from being used to construct DNA Circles and AncestryDNA Hint matches.

On my original post, I provided my own remedies, including:

* The list of matches should be ordered according to how many sources are provided for the person of interest. That way, the (presumably) "best" tree information appears at the top of the list.

* A source listing an "Ancestry Member Tree" is fairly useless if there is no attached record on the profile. Why are they even considered?

* Ancestry.com should provide a summary of their indexing rules, and the date of the last index on a regular basis.

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/reader-comments-on-does-ancestry-member.html

Monday, February 22, 2016

CeCe Moore Explains the Behind the Scenes Work on the LL Cool J "Finding Your Roots" episode

Like many other genealogists, I thought that the LL Cool J and Sean Combs episode of Finding Your Roots, shown on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 on PBS, was one of the best in the series. In the episode, the research team, including DNA expert CeCe Moore, found that the mother of LL Cool J was adopted, and found her biological parents through DNA testing and analysis.

The episode can be viewed online at http://www.pbs.org/video/2365669450/:

In the episode, CeCe Moore was shown discussing the DNA results with LL Cool J. But there was a lot more going on "behind the scenes" because the DNA results took several years to figure out.

CeCe discusses those "behind the scenes" on last week's episode of Chit Chat Live! on the In-Depth Genealogist channel on YouTube, hosted by Shannon Combs Bennett with Terri O'Connell and Valerie Eichler Lair on the panel. You can watch the 45 minute episode below:

If this Finding Your Roots episode interested you, and you want to know more about the DNA testing and analysis process, you should watch both of these videos.

=============================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/cece-moore-explains-behind-scenes-work.html

New or Updated Record Collections at FamilySearch.org - February 14 to 20, 2016

I'm trying to keep up with the new and updated record collections at FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/list).

As of 20 February 2016, there were 2,065 record collections on FamilySearch (an increase of 3 from last week):

The new or updated collections are:

* Massachusetts, Delayed and Corrected Vital Records, 1753-1900; Browse Images only, no indexed records, ADDED 19 Feb 2016

* England, Lancashire, Oldham Cemetery Registers, 1797-2004; Browse Images only, no indexed records, Updated 19 Feb 2016

* Massachusetts Births and Christenings, 1639-1915; 4,692,796 indexed records with no record images, Updated 19 Feb 2016

* California, San Francisco Passenger and Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving, 1954-1957; Browse Images only, no indexed records, Updated 18 Feb 2016

* Massachusetts Marriages, 1695-1910; 1,969,085 indexed records with no record images, Updated 18 Feb 2016

* Massachusetts Births, 1841-1915; 3,744,092 indexed records with record images, Updated 18 Feb 2016

* Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915; 2,725,730 indexed records with record images, Updated 18 Feb 2016

* Massachusetts Deaths and Burials, 1795-1910; 1,545,553 indexed records with no record images, Updated 18 Feb 2016

* United States Deaths and Burials, 1867-1961; 3,129 indexed records with no record images, Updated 17 Feb 2016

* Nebraska Marriages, 1855-1995; 45,528 indexed records with record images, Updated 17 Feb 2016

* Maine Marriages, 1771-1907; 597,443 indexed records with record images, Updated 17 Feb 2016

* Maine Deaths and Burials, 1841-1910; 172,473 indexed records with no record images, Updated 17 Feb 2016

* Maryland Births and Christenings, 1650-1995; 157,281 indexed records with no record images, Updated 17 Feb 2016

* Maryland Deaths and Burials, 1877-1992; 50 indexed records with no record images, Updated 17 Feb 2016

* Maryland Marriages, 1666-1970; 227,204 indexed records with no record images, Updated 17 Feb 2016

* United States, World War II Prisoners of War, 1941-1945; 143,374 indexed records with no record images, ADDED 17 Feb 2016

* Kansas County Marriages, 1855-1911; 460,533 indexed records with record images, Updated 16 Feb 2016

* Liberia, Marriage Records, 1941-1974; 24,625 indexed records with record images, Updated 16 Feb 2016

* Indiana, Gary and East Chicago Crew Lists, 1945-1956; 17,094 indexed records with record images, Updated 16 Feb 2016

* England, Devon Bishop's Transcripts, 1558-1887; 256,201 indexed records with record images, ADDED 16 Feb 2016

The asterisk used by FamilySearch is for "Recently added or updated." I am particularly interested in new collections, for the obvious reasons. FamilySearch does provide a listing of which collections are new or updated several days after my post.

My friend, Marshall, has come up with a way to determine which collections are ADDED or UPDATED, in addition to which collections were removed. My thanks to Marshall for helping me out here!

In order to select a specific collection, go to https://familysearch.org/search/collection/list and use the "Filter by collection name" feature in the upper left-hand corner.

Each one of the collections listed above has a Research Wiki page (use the "Learn more" link). It would be very useful if the Wiki page for each collection listed the dates for when the collection was added as a new collection and the dates for major updates also.

=============================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/new-or-updated-record-collections-at_22.html

Amanuensis Monday - Post 308: 1890 Final Judgment on Estate of Sever Torgerson Leland (1804-1889) of Dane County, Wisconsin

Genea-blogger John Newmark (who writes the excellent TransylvanianDutch blog) started a Monday blog theme years ago called "Amanuensis Monday." John offers this definition for "amanuensis:"

"A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another."

The subject today is the 1890 Final Judgment of the estate of Sever Torgerson Leland (1804-1889) in Dane County, Wisconsin:

[image 414]

[image 415]

[image 416]

The transcription of this document is (form spaces are underlined, italics for handwritten text):

[image 414]

State of Wisconsin, County Court for Dane County

------------------------------------------

In the Matter of the Estate of } IN PROBATE

Sever Torgerson Leland }

------------------------------------------

At December Term 18 90

December 3^rd 18 90

Torger S. Leland the administrator of the

Estate of Sever Torgerson Leland

deceased, late of the town of Deerfield in said county of Dane,

having on the 25^th day of September 18 90, field in said court his final

accounts as such administrator , together with his petition, praying

among other things for judgment adjusting and allowing his said accounts, and assigning

the residue of said estate to the persons entitled thereto; And on the 25^th day of September

18 90 , an Order having been made by said court, that said accounts be examined and adjusted, and

the matters of said petition be decided at the Regular Term of said court, to be held on the First

Tuesday of November 18 90 , at the opening of the Court on that day, or as soon

thereafter as said matter could be heard and that notice thereof be given to all persons interested by

publication of said Order three successive weeks before said Term in the Wisconsin State

Journal a newspaper published in said Dane County; And it appearing by due proof

that due notice by publication of said Order has been given as required by law and said Order.

And, on the 4^th day of October 18 89, an order having been duly made by said

Court limiting the time for creditors of the said Sever Torgerson Leeland deceased to

present their claims against said Sever Torgerson Leland deceased, and appointing

time and place, when and where the said Court would receive, examine and adjust such claims; and

due notice having been given, as required by law, and the Order last aforesaid, of the time so limited

for presenting such claims, and of the time and place so appointed for the examination and adjusting

of the same; and the time so limited for the presenting of such claims having expired on the

6^th day of May 18 90 , and no claim having

been presented against said Sever Torgerson

Leland deceased and it appearing that the

amount properly chargeable to said administra

tor is Two Thousand eight hundred and sixty

five and 43/100 dollars, that the amount properly

allowed and credited to said administrator is

One hundred and twenty two and 85/100 dollars

that the balance left in the hands of said

administrator is Two thousand Seven hundred

[image 415]

and forty two and 68/100 dollars.

That the said Sever Togerson Leeland deceased

died leaving him as his only heirs at law

the following, to wit: Torger S. Leland a son

of age, residing at London Dane County State

of Wisconsin, Ole S. Leland a son of age

residing at the same place; Isabel Dykestien

a daughter of age residing at Deerfield in

said County, Anna Woelfer a daughter of

age residing at Waterloo, County of Jeffer-

son in said State, and Mrs. Betsey Leland

the widow of said deceased residing at

London in said County.

Wherefore it is order and Adjudged that

the account of the administrator as stated as afore

said be and the same is hereby allowed:

That the said sum of two Thousand Seven

hundred and forty and 58/100 be assigned and set

over as follows: To the said Torger S. Leeland

one fifty part thereof amounting to five hundred

and forty eight and 11/100 Dollars; to the said Ole

S. Leland one fifth part thereof amounting to

Five hundred and forty eight and 11/100 dollars; to

the said Isabel Dykestien one fifth part thereof

amounting to Five hundred and forty eight

and 11/100 Dollars; to the said Anna Woelfer

one fifth part thereof amounting to Five

hundred and forty eight and 11/100 Dollars; to

the said Betsy Leland one fifth part thereof

amounting to Five hundred and forty eight

and 11/100 Dollars and it is further Ordered that

upon filing the receipts of the persons above

[inage 416]

named for their shares the said administrator

be discharged from any further duty or liability

and that his surities also be discharged from

further obligation on their bond.

Dated the 8^th day of December A.D. 1890.

By the Court

J.H. Carpenter

Judge

The source citation for this document is:

Dane County, Wisconsin, Dane County Probate Records, Box 112-Box 113, Sever Torgeson Leland estate file, Final Judgment, 1890 (images 414-416 of 1293); "Wisconsin, Wills and Probates, 1800-1987," digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 9 September 2015); citing original data in Wisconsin County, District and Probate Courts.

Sever Torgerson Leland (1804-1889) died intestate on 29 March 1889 in Deerfield, Dane County, Wisconsin. His eldest son, Torger S. Leland was appointed administrator of the estate. No real property was included in the estate. Much of the personal property was distributed to the heirs shortly after the death. The debts and credits owed to Sever Torgerson Leland and the money in the house comprised the personal property to be distributed. The administrator paid the bills for the monument in the cemetery, the funeral charges, the road tax, the publication charges, and prospective expenses.

Sever Torgerson Leland is the second great-grandfather of my wife, Linda (Leland) Seaver. He brought his family from Voss in Norway to Deerfield in Dane County, Wisconsin in 1855.

================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/amanuensis-monday-post-308-1890-final.html

Copyright (c) 2016, Randall J. Seaver

Pages

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Monday, February 22, 2016