There simply aren't enough hours in the day

For some time, I've been contemplating creating a Public Member Tree on ancestry.com. Yesterday I uploaded a small gedcom file to use as a little test. It was created from Legacy using the default options, which essentially means everything would be included, except what was marked as private. Basically, I was trying to determine, and understand, how the data gets parsed and how it displays on a person's profile page.

The file consisted of just a few generations of Mom's ancestors and contained 58 people. Within seconds of uploading the gedcom there appeared 57 ancestry hints! A few minutes later 21 of those people had a total of 194 hints. What is that figure going to be if I upload a database of 5000 dead people? More than a little overwhelming, I think.

I perused about half of those hints and didn't discover any new information. In fact, the stories and photos that I viewed were from my blog or stuff I've shared over the years with other people. The record hints were mostly census records.

As far as how the data displayed - at first it didn't make a lot of sense.  I may not like it, but I think I now understand why it is done the way it is. 

I was somewhat concerned about the General Notes and Research Notes that I've got in my Legacy file. There's stuff in those Notes that I don't particularly want to share just yet. In the past that was where I put "temporary" information. When I had access to the internet for research and I'd find something it would go there until I got around to reviewing it and entering it into the events or facts for the individual. I've just never gotten back to it. Notes are also where I put the stuff that has not been "proven" to my satisfaction along with thoughts and analysis. Rather like a "holding bin" of sorts. Where other people might have piles of paper on their desk, I've got bunches of notes. The result is the same, it all just sits there waiting for that wonderful time called "round-toit" to show up.

Thankfully, the General Notes and Research Notes in Legacy went into a "Notes" area on the ancestry online tree that appears to be hidden. There is a notation on that screen that "Notes can only be viewed by the owner and by those invited to the tree as an "Editor."

Handling of events was a little strange, I thought.

Events were added to the online tree using the Event Name, Description, Date, and Place as they were in Legacy, which is good. But the "Notes" that I've added for each Legacy event went into an area that is available only by clicking on the "Unsourced Citations" link.

After clicking on the name of the Source Citation another screen displays and you have to click on "(view source details)" to see the entire citation. 

This is where the detail information for the source is displayed. If any "Comments" have been added in Legacy regarding the source, they are included in the "Notes" area of the "Source Information" screen. 

This is the screen that displays when you click on the "Unsourced Citations" link of an event. The text in the  "Other Information" area is the notes that were entered in Legacy for that particular event.

That's a lot of clicking... will anyone click through all those screens to see the details or additional information? Doubtful.

After 2 hours of viewing various people and screens, the test tree was deleted. It had been a long time since I had created a gedcom from Legacy so I spent a little time looking at the options. In the test gedcom, I left the options at the default, which basically means everything would be included, except that marked as private.  But there is a little button in the lower right corner that says "customize." Clicking on that button brings up a screen that looks rather intimidating at first.

What's cool is that it allows you to exclude "groups" of items such as Events, Medical Notes, Regular Notes, Research Notes, To-Do Items, and (gasp) even Sources.

The "Customize" screen for exporting a gedcom from Legacy.

I have so many events for some individuals that their profile screen in the online tree was extremely cluttered. I also have a lot of "special" or custom events created for my own use. In addition, I already have a lot of "Census" events so if I were to add the hints for census records as an event in the online tree, there would be a lot of duplication.

What I am now considering is uploading a rather "bare bones" file without events and notes but including sources. Such as they are. Then, I will selectively add "stories" from blog posts (as suggested by Apple) as well as adding "stories" as explanations for some of my conclusions regarding certain relationships.

My database is not perfect. It's not done. It never will be. There are some relationships entered that are purely speculation on my part, and some that are probably outright wrong. But if I wait until everything is "right" it won't ever get put online. On the one hand, I may be adding more misinformation to the multitude of misinformation already out there. Will that come back to haunt me some day? On the other hand, I know I have information that could resolve some of the misinformation on certain families.

So I'm still in a state of flux in deciding whether to put my database online, and if so, how much of it to share. Do I include events and sources?  I don't particularly like how the events get imported but I also don't want to spend a lot of time adding things to the online tree. Do I put up a tree with just the ancestors? Or do I include all 5000 deceased persons in the database? Decisions. Decisions.

Published under a Creative Commons License.
Becky Wiseman, "There simply aren't enough hours in the day," Kinexxions, posted November 27, 2012 (http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/2012/11/there-simply-arent-enough-hours-in-day.html : accessed [access date])

So, Now what do I do?

There has been a lot written recently regarding copyright, plagiarism, and outright stealing of content from websites and blogs including Michael J. Leclerc on Copyright and Copy Wrong and Judy G. Russell, The Legal Genealogist, at Copyright and the website.

I thought I'd share what's been happening with my own content... it's gonna be a long post... it's taken me a while to put it together coherently...

About two weeks ago I found an ancestry member tree that had copied quite a few of my blog posts and added them as stories to her tree. Without attribution. No indication in the story that the owner of the tree had not written the story.

In the past I've found blog posts in online trees, also used without attribution, and have contacted the owners of the trees. Usually they comply with my wishes to either remove the content or add a proper citation to the story. But this time, the person had taken over 20 of my blog posts, many of them in their entirety and others using large portions, and added them to her tree as her own stories. Without attribution.

Needless to say, I was extremely upset. I waited a few days before contacting the tree owner mulling over what I was going to say and how best to say it.

Some of the posts here at kinexxions have taken me days to put together. To say nothing of the research time and resources that got me to the point of being able to finally write those posts.

I'm not talking about a list of names and dates, I'm talking about lengthy articles (blog posts) that take hours or even days to write. The other issue I have, especially with the ancestry.com stories, is that the posts are used out of context, particularly if they were part of a series of articles. In addition, if there are links to other posts within a specific blog post those links are lost when they are copied into an ancestry story (at least that is the case with these particular stories).

My reasons for writing about my family history and posting about it on the blog are many. Among them are the desire to share information that I have found, especially on family lines where not much previous research has been done. To show my research process in finding that information and the thought process involved. And, by putting the information "out there" to make contact with relatives or others who have an interest in the same families I am researching.

With those reasons in mind, several years ago I chose to use a Creative Commons License. That does not mean I have given up my rights to the material I have written and posted here at kinexxions. I specifically chose the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) license. The guidelines for that license state that if you desire to use content protected under that license:

• You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). 
• You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
• If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Under those guidelines, I added the Creative Commons logo to the sidebar and added text to the effect that if my work here was used that I should be given credit for that work by having my name included as well as a link back to the specific blog post being used. In other words, simple common courtesy and use of a standard source citation for blog posts.

Two days after finding 20 some blog posts added to an ancestry tree, and after calming down, writing out what I was going to say and re-writing it several times, I finally used the ancestry member connect feature to send the user in question the following message (name of ancestor and link to the ancestor profile have been removed):

"I noticed that you have a lot of nice "stories" on [name of ancestor] and his children, starting at [link to the ancestor]. It appears that you have written them, but I know otherwise... those "stories" were written by me and posted on my blog at http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/

"They required a considerable amount of time and research. These "stories" are licensed through a Creative Commons License which requires that attribution (credit to the author, with name and a link back to the article) be made when used elsewhere. 

"It is simply common courtesy to acknowledge the work of others - particularly when you use the story in its entirety, along with photos. It is also called plagiarism (content theft) when an entire article is used without attribution and without permission.

"It would also be nice to know HOW YOU ARE CONNECTED TO THE FAMILY! Perhaps we could collaborate and solve some of the questions associated with this family.

"I look forward to hearing from you and I hope you will add attribution to the stories of mine that you have used. It's like a never-ending cycle - "your" stories, which are actually mine, have now been attached to other trees. That will continue to happen, I'm sure, but it would certainly be nice if they were identified as to who they were actually written by (including a link back to the original blog post)."

Later that same day, I had a response from the owner of the tree. She said she would add a link to the blog in each of the stories, which isn't really what I wanted. I went ahead and gathered the URL for each post that was used and crafted a citation to be included with each story and sent those to her. By the next day, she had updated the stories with the desired citation.

Even though the person that created the stories added the citations, those changes don't get filtered down to the same stories that were attached to other trees. I have contacted the other tree-owners and explained what was going on and even included the desired citation to be added to the stories they had attached.

I gave them the option of adding the citation or deleting the stories and then, if desired, re-attaching the stories to their trees. As of today, I have had a response from only 2 of the other 9 tree owners. One of those two has made the changes, the other one hasn't. No word at all from the other seven.

So, do I send another message as a follow-up? The other option I have, I think, is to go to each of the stories in the trees and add a comment to them that includes the citation to the blog post.

Several days after finding the blog posts used in the ancestry trees, I checked Find A Grave to see if a Memorial had been created for another ancestor. There was a rather recent memorial for him as well as one for his wife. Included in the memorials were portions of one of my blog posts as the "biography" of the ancestors. This time, I didn't wait a few days since I had already crafted a message for the ancestry trees. I never heard back from the creator of those memorials but I checked a few days later and the biographies had been removed.

I have a feeling that more blog posts have likely been used by others, whether in ancestry trees or elsewhere. I don't have the time or the energy to go looking for them. However, if I happen to come across my content being used without attribution, I will not hesitate to contact the person who has used (stolen/plagiarized) it!

In addition to having the Creative Commons License on the sidebar of the blog, I have also created a "Use of Content" page that displays as one of the tabs along the top of the blog, beneath the header. This allows me to send a specific link describing the terms for the use of the content to people who use my content without attribution.

I have also started including the text at the bottom of this post in each new blog post (modified accordingly, of course). Hopefully, that will make it easier for people to use proper attribution and encourage them to do so. These actions won't stop people who believe that all content on the internet is theirs for the taking but at least I've covered the bases and if content is used without proper attribution, actions can be taken.

Should I go back and add a citation to previous posts? Probably, but realistically, there just aren't enough hours in the day to do that for nearly 1500 blog posts!

Published under a Creative Commons License.
Becky Wiseman, "So, Now what do I do?," Kinexxions, posted November 15, 2012 (http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/2012/11/so-now-what-do-i-do.html : accessed [access date])

The Estate of Dederick Hoffman :: The Sale Bill

Sale Bill, page 1

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio

FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011
The cover page shows that the sale bill was filed July 1st 1826.

A List of the property Sold on the 15th day of May 1826 by the Administrators of the Estate of Detrich Hoffman late of Columbiana County Deceased with the amount that the Articles was Sold for to wit

Samuel Hoffman	one Shue hammer & chisel	- -	20
George Holderreed	a hammer wedge & pinchers	- -	38
Christian Betz	one Square and hog tongs	- -	16
John Beevers	Mull rings and wedge	- -	38
Christian Betz	2 hay forks	- -	58
John Hoffman	Dung fork & Shovel	- -	47
Saml Hoffman	Dung hook	- -	50
Susanah Hoffman	one Spade	- -	12 1/2
Jacob Keckly	one Matick	- -	41
John Hoffman	one axe & Bell	- -	27
Saml Hoffman	one bell	- -	75
Thomas Minor	on Do	01	00
Saml Hoffman	one drawing knife	- -	25
David Gearinger	a lot of Augurs	- -	25 1/2
Christain Betz	one inch Augur	- -	40
Saml Hoffman	one hand Saw	- -	50
Abraham Hoffman	one axe	01	06 1/4
Jacob Stauffer	one mans Saddle	01	01
Saml Hoffman	one flax hackel	- -	39
Christian Myr	a curry comb	- -	06 1/2
Thomas Kitch Jr	one Grind Stone	- -	46
Henry Bricker Jr	one pair of hems [?]	- -	40
Saml Hoffman	one cow chain	- -	14
Do Do	Do Do	- -	28
Do Do	Do Do	- -	25
Thomas Minor	a halter chain & coler	- -	94
Wm Baker	one lot of traces chains	- -	62 1/2

Sale Bill, page 2

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio

FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011

		D	C
Henry Bricker Jr	Skillet & lid	- -	74
Saml Hoffman	one Griddle	- -	30
David Gochaneur	one pot	- -	90
John Hoffman	one Dutch oven	01	00
Frederic Betz	one Dough tray	- -	06 1/4
Abraham Mumert	one churn	- -	32
John Fry	one barrel	00	04
David Gocheneur	one Spinning wheel	- -	79
Do Do	two chairs	- -	35
Saml Boots	a lot of upper leather	01	02
Wm Baker	one chest	01	50
Jacob Stauffer Jr	one feed trough	- -	26
Henry Miller	2 tow [?] bags	- -	63
Saml Hoffman	2 turilled [?] bags	- -	56
Abraham Mumertt	Do Do	- -	72
Frederic Betz	one Jack Screw	03	50
Saml Hoffman	one half Bushel	- -	18 3/4
Jacob Roller	one Riddle	- -	25
John Hoffman	one 12 gallon Kettle	03	12 1/2
Saml Hoffman	Do Do Do	02	65
David Gocheneur	one meet tub	- -	57
George Holterreed	one log chain	02	00
Henry Miller	a lot of tin ware	- -	06 1/4
David Gearinger	a lot of Spoons	- -	20
Henry Miller	a coffee pot dish	- -	14
Abraham Mumert	one pair of Sheep Shears	- -	37 1/2
Abraham Hoffmann	a German Sermon book	- -	25
Abraham Mumert	a pewter Dish	- -	22 1/2
Abraham Hoffman	2 German books	- -	27
Saml Hoffman	a German Bible	- -	75

Sale Bill, page 3

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio

FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011

		D	C
Jacob Roller	8 knives	- -	30
Henry Miller	a tea Kettle	- -	27
Christian Meese	cups and Saucers	- -	12 1/2
Do Do	a lot of plates	- -	12 1/2
Do Do	a tin pan	- -	18 3/4
Andrew Altman	a lot of pewter	- -	59
Henry Bricker Sr	7 yds of Shirting linnen	01	57 1/2
Henry Miller	Do Do Do	01	82
Abraham Hoffman	8 Do Do Do	02	40
Isaac Baughman	10 yards of tow	01	82 1/2
John Hoffman	4 yds of Woollen cloth	03	00
Abraham Hoffman	one coggshell	- -	38
Saml Hoffman	one Steelgavel	01	04
Abraham Hoffman	one Rifle gun and exutrmer [?]	09	25
John Hoffman	a clock and case	05	80
Micheal Frederic	a Dresser	02	87 1/2
Saml Hoffman	a pot tramel		62 1/2
Abraham Hoffman	one mare	40	37 1/2
Christian Halderman	one Sow and pigs	03	07
Henry Bricker Sr	one Barrow	01	92
David Gocheneur	one ew and lamb	01	94
Do Do	one Do	01	31
Do Do	DoDo	01	45
Samuel Hoffman	one cuting Box	- -	75
Jacob Keckly	one windmill	05	15
George Holterreed	one pidea [?] Steer	05	03
Do Do	one black Do	05	00
Johnathan Tyler	on Cow	10	14
John Hoffman	one heiffer calf	03	25
Wm Betz	two crocks	00	14

Sale Bill, page 4

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio

FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011

		D	C
Wm Betz	two crocks	- -	14
Wm Betz	two crocks	- -	12 1/2
Henry Bricker	6 lbs flax yarn	- -	96
Do Do	Do Do	- -	96
Frederic Swarts	one lot of rye	01	80
Jacob Roller	Do Do	01	89
Micheal Frederic	3 yr Bushels of buckwheat	- -	56
Do Do	2 crocks	- -	07
Philip Houtz	10 bushels of wheat	02	60
Joseph Frederic	Do Do Do	02	90
Henry Bricker Jr	Do Do Do	03	20
Frederic Betz	Do Do Do	03	12 1/2
Henry Hoffman	Do Do Do	03	12 1/2
Joseph Frederic	Do Do Do	03	12 1/2
Christian Meess	3 Do more or less	00	90
Frederic Swarts	10 bushels of oats	01	40
Saml Fox	Do Do	01	40
Do Do	Do Do	01	40
Do Do	Do Do	01	40
Henry Bricker Senr	one bed and beding	06	00
Frederic Betz	10 lbs of Sugar	- -	75
John Sheets	Do Do Do	- -	70
Do Do	Do Do Do	- -	75
Do Do	to Sugar	- -	12 1/2
Saml Hoffman	one cag	- -	25
Henry Miller	35 lbs of Becon	01	57 1/2
Do Do	32 lbs Do	01	12 1/2
John Hoffman	22 lbs Do	- -	70
Do Do	13 1/4 lbs Do	- -	67 1/2

Sale Bill, page 5

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio

FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011

		D	C
John McConner	one lot of beef	- -	84
Frederic Swarts	one gig	- -	10
Frederic Betz	one Barel	- -	12 1/2
Samuel Butz	one chisel	- -	07
Saml Hoffman	one third of a lot of rye in the ground	06	85
Do  Do	one third of a lot of wheat in the grnd	08	00

I do certify that the above is a correct list and amount of property Sold at the sale before mentioned.    

                     Jacob Roller Clk [crossed out]
                     John Hoffman
                     Samuel Hoffman

Published under a Creative Commons License.
Becky Wiseman, "The Estate of Dederick Hoffman :: The Sale Bill," Kinexxions, posted November 14, 2012 (http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-estate-of-dederick-hoffman-sale-bill.html : accessed [access date])

Veterans in the Family

Grandpa - Rolland Victor Phend - WWI

1917-1919
saw duty in France, was gassed

photo taken in June 1983

Dad - Jack William Wiseman - WWII

1943 - 1946
saw duty in the Pacific arena with the 511th

Brother - Charles Douglas Wiseman

1964-1968
Hospital Corpsman, served with the Marines at Camp Lejeune

Brother - Jack Lynn Wiseman

1969-1973
Hospital Corpsman, served with the Marines in San Diego

me - Becky Wiseman

1969-1979
Photographers Mate, numerous duty stations

You can read more about the military service of ancestors and others in my family in this post from 2007.

Published under a Creative Commons License.
Becky Wiseman, "Veterans in the Family," Kinexxions, posted November 11, 2012 (http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/2012/11/veterans-in-family.html : accessed [access date])

The Estate of Dederick Hoffman :: Property Widow Kept at Appraisement

In addition to the Widow's Allowance provided for Susannah Hoffman by the administrators of the estate of Dederick Hoffman, she also took a few items at the time the estate was appraised.

A list of the property with Its value that the widow kept at the appraisement.

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio

FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011

A list of the property with Its value that the widow kept at the appraisement.

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio

FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011

	D   C
one twelve gallon kattle - - - - - - - -	02 50
one ten plate Stove and pipe - - - - -	11 00
one German Sermon book - - - - - -	01 50
one lot of Flax - - - - - - - - - - - - -	00 40
one Table - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	00 75
one bed and beding - - - - - - - - - -	06 00
one lot of flax and tow - - - - - - - -	00 75
one Reel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	00 25
one lot of lether - - - - - - - - - - - -	01 00
one Spider frying pan pot tramel and coffee mitt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	02 00
one fat hog - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	03 00
one chest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	01 00
one Side Saddle - - - - - - - - - - - -	06 00
three chairs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -	75
	$42 00

The above is an Inventory of the property that the Widow kept at the apprased value
May 15th 1826
Samuel Hoffman
John Hoffman
Administrators of the Estate of Detrick Hoffman Deceased

The total as calculated by the appraisers was $42.00 but their addition was off a little as the amount adds up to $41.90 which is the amount shown in the final settlement papers.

Published under a Creative Commons License. 
Becky Wiseman, "The Estate of Dederick Hoffman :: Property Widow Kept at Appraisement," Kinexxions, posted November 8, 2012 (http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-estate-of-dederick-hoffman-property.html : accessed [access date])

The Estate of Dederick Hoffman :: Widow's Allowance

Dederick/Detrick Hoffman and his wife Susannah are my 5th great-grandparents. Descent is through their son John who married Catherine Coy and their daughter Susannah who married John D. Berlin.

Estate of Dederick Hoffman (Packet 805) Columbiana County, Ohio
FHL film 2032459 accessed June 8, 2011

A Schedule of the provisions and other property allowed to Susannah Hoffman Widow of Detrich Hoffman late of Salem Township Columbiana County Deceased for her Support for one year by us the Subscribers duly appointed appraisersers to the Estate of the Sd Deceased to wit: 

one lot of meat, one hog, a Small lot of Kitchen furniture, one Cow, twenty Bushels of wheat, five Dollars in money, eight Bushels of oats, three lbs of Wool, one bushel and a half of Salt, a lot of Soap, twenty lbs of Sugar, two twiled bags

We the Subscribers do certify that the foregoing is a correct Schedule of property allowed to the above named Widow given under our hands this 12th day of May 1826.

George Urick, John Yoder, Andrew Altman } Appraisers

Published under a Creative Commons License. 
Becky Wiseman, "The Estate of Dederick Hoffman :: Widow's Allowance," Kinexxions, posted November 7, 2012 (http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-estate-of-dederick-hoffman-widows.html : accessed [access date])

Another Piece of the Puzzle

On my visit to the Columbiana County Archives and Research Center in Lisbon, Ohio last month I was given two more documents relating to the descendants of Dietrich Hoffman, my 5th great-grandfather. A previous visit (in July 2011) had garnered an article on the legal publication of the Petition for Partition for a portion of the real estate.

Published on September 29, 1832 on page one of The Ohio Patriot, the article lists the heirs of Detrick Hoffman and states that 27 acres in the north west quarter of section 12, township 15, range 3 were involved. Although there were 10 heirs named, the petitioner was requesting his “one-sixth part of said land” indicating that there were only 6 children of Detrick Hoffman still living or deceased with children. (A full transcription can be found in this post).

The parties involved in the Petition were John Hoffman, Samuel Hoffman, Daniel Coler and Elizabeth his wife, John Swarts and Margaret his wife, Henry Hoffman, Samuel Hoffman, Jacob Hoffman, Abraham Hoffman, Samuel Fox, and Edward Rhodes and Sarah his wife.

Through evaluation of various records and information from another researcher, we thought the relationships of the individuals listed in the above Petition were:

• John, Samuel, Jacob, and Abraham - children of Detrick
• Elizabeth wife of Daniel Coler, Margaret wife of John Swarts, Henry Hoffman, and Samuel Hoffman - children of Michael & Mary (Coy) Hoffman
• Samuel Fox and Sarah wife of Edward Rhodes - children of Phillip and Susanna (Hoffman) Fox

One of the things that puzzled me about the above Petition was that only 27 acres of land were being sold. Detrick was in possession of 81 acres of land when he died in March 1826. The answer lies in the documents below...

Columbiana County, Ohio - Common Pleas Journal #6, page 165

August Term AD 1828 1st day 18th

John Hoffman & Jacob Hoffman vs Michael Hoffman, Samuel Hoffman, Abraham Hoffman, Abraham Fox, Samuel Fox, Sarah Fox & Susanna Huffman } Petition for Partition

"The Petition of John Huffman & Jacob Huffman by Mr. Blocksom their attorney presented their Petition for partition of 81 25/100 acres of land being a part of S12. T15. R3. in Columbiana County & produced satisfactory Proof that due & legal notice has been given the parties interested by Publication in the Ohio Patriot. A. W. Loomis Esq is appointed guardian ad litem of for Abraham Fox[,] Samuel Fox & Sarah Fox defendants in this case & Minors, who appears and receives notice and consent to the grantings of the prayer of the Petition, whereupon the Court grant the Petition [smudged word] that a writ of Partition [illegible word] to the Sheriff to proceed and apart [?]..."

It seems there may be a little more to the case on the next page, which I neglected to get... at any rate, the document shows us that Michael Hoffman was still living in August 1828. It also names three minors: Abraham, Samuel and Sarah Fox. The published petition of 1832 listed Samuel Fox as well as  Sarah wife of Edward Rhodes. There was no mention of Abraham. It is likely that he died sometime between the time of the two documents (August 18, 1828 and August 23, 1832). So, it seems, that our original "assessment" regarding the heirs of Detrick Hoffman was correct!

Columbiana County, Ohio - Common Pleas Journal #7, page 53

April Term 1829, 3 day

John Huffman etal vs Michael Huffman etal }

"The Sheriff of the County made return of a writ of sale issued in this case with his proceedings thereon from which it appears that after giving notice as required by the statute of the time & place of sale by advertising & putting up written advertisements he sold the land in said writ mentioned at the Court House in said County on the 26th of January 1829, Except the widows dower mentioned in the writ, to John Fry for Seven Hundred ten dollars & that he brought the money into Court for distribution & thereupon the Court order the said Sheriff, after deducting the costs & expenses, to distribute the money aforesaid to & amongst the parties entitled to receive the same in lieu of their shares & proportions of said land according to their just rights. And said Sheriff here acknowledges in open Court a deed for said land so sold as aforesaid to said Fry."

It appears that John Fry would have purchased 54 acres, with the 27 acres mentioned in the 1832 published Petition being the Widow's Dower.

What these two documents also provide is a better estimate of the date of death of Susannah Hoffman, widow of Detrick. We now know that she was still living in January 1829 when the land was sold to John Fry but had passed away before August 23, 1832 when the Petition for Partition for the remaining 27 acres was dated.

Published under a Creative Commons License.
Becky Wiseman, "Another Piece of the Puzzle," Kinexxions, posted November 9, 2012 (http://kinexxions.blogspot.com/2012/11/another-piece-of-puzzle.html : accessed [access date])