Wednesday, May 29, 2013

The Clerk Cannot Find It, So it Never Happened

When Wilhelmina Rothweiler applied for a Civil War pension in her husband's name, she made this statement about the record of her marriage:

The reason Wilhelmina was unable to comply with the request was that "it was never recorded, as she was married in 1851, in St. Louis, Mo., and the records were never kept that far back."

That statement never made sense to me as I had located marriage records for other couples who married in St. Louis during this time period. When I looked for the marriage myself, using the approach that would have been done in 1890 when this affidavit was made out, I realized why it was not located.

The marriage of Wilhelmina and her husband did take place in St. Louis, as she insisted, however. The problem was that the marriage was not indexed in the record book in which it appears and the clerk apparently did not take the time to search the record book entry by entry.

There's more about the location of this marriage record in a Rootdig.com blog post "Finding Wilhelmina Trautvetter's 1851 Marriage Entry."

There's a few other issues about Wilhelmina that we are working on for an upcoming newsletter issue. Stay tuned.

Friday, May 24, 2013

What Does Reared Mean?


In this pension affidavit for Mary Randles, William Foster indicated that he and Mary were "reared by one Samuel Foster." The question is: does the use of the word "rear" mean that they were not children of Samuel Foster?

At this point, I'm not certain. But the statements made in the pension file indicate that Mary Randles was Mary Rampley at her marriage in 1865 in Coshocton County, Ohio, and that she was not married before her marriage to Randles.

We'll have an update in an upcoming issue.

This statement was located in the following pension file:


Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Only One Lady Among Them

This is one of the items I am working on "down the road."

In reviewing this list of purchases from the estate of Thomas Rampley in Coshocton County, Ohio, in the 1820s there is only one female whose name appears among the purchasers.

Her presence on the list isn't proof that she is the widow of Thomas, but would you consider it evidence that she's the widow?

The records of the settlement of Thomas' estate do not name his widow.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Issue 30 is Out

If you did not receive issue 30, please let me know.

Thanks!

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Why Was She Mrs.?

This is part of the death certificate that is being analyzed in the issue of Casefile Clues that is scheduled to be released next--issue 30.

Madaleine and I have been having a discussion about the name while we've been reviewing the edits. "Mrs. Lucinda Kile" is how the deceased is listed. There's a spot elsewhere on the certificate for marital status-she was married at the time she died.

Usually this notation "Mrs. Lucinda Kile" is reserved for a woman who is divorced or whose husband is deceased. That's not the case with Lucinda at all.

The "Mrs." debate really isn't germane to our discussion of the document, but it is an interesting item to consider as the usage of her name with the term "Mrs." is unusual for the time period.

Addresses of Heirs in 1914

We are working on this court case for an upcoming issue. 

This is one document from the Dirks versus Dirks case which was heard in the Adams County, Illinois, court in 1914. This document testifies to the mailing addresses of several heirs involved. The names and addresses of out-of-state heirs was particularly helpful and one reason why every court case has the potential to provide connecting information. 
Locating John Driesbach was the real difficulty in this case and the address was a significant help.

Stay Tuned!