No announcement yet.

Barnett in 1901?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Here it is - I don't know how much it will help!

    Click image for larger version

Name:	BarnettJInfrimary1903.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	14.2 KB
ID:	661676


    • #47
      left hand

      Hello Sally. If an abbreviation, could it be l ha (for left hand)?

      Still looks a bit like a "T."



      • #48
        It is nothing like the T on ‘to’
        I doubt if it was injury to hand as he was in hospital for the best part of two months. I think head must be favourite


        • #49
          Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
          It is nothing like the T on ‘to’
          I doubt if it was injury to hand as he was in hospital for the best part of two months. I think head must be favourite
          Are you thinking its a capital H Lechmere? It could be, couldn't it? Difficult to tell.


          • #50
            It is very difficult to tell what it says (I mean best part of three months not two).
            Although a point of interest it isn't of great significance - the significant thing is the entry itself.

            And Good Michael, I would have thought that by now you would know better than to make jokes on here.


            • #51
              Originally posted by Sally View Post
              Here it is - I don't know how much it will help!


              Not much, but thanks for trying Sally.

              I thought you may have been able to go back to the original page and enlarge that and then clip the word out at that magnification....That's me just assuming you found these records by trawling the endless poor law records on Ancestry, sorry.


              • #52
                Is this any better?

                Click image for larger version

Name:	jb19051.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	4.0 KB
ID:	661677

                Hopefully its clearer.


                • #53
                  Thanks, that's definitely clearer but still hard to tell what it says for me, I've just snapped the arm off my reading glasses and then got superglue all over the lens trying to fix it back on again!


                  • #54
                    Hello Debs,

                    "Injury to His..." is how I first read this

                    Then again... the more one stares..etc etc

                    Hope all is well

                    best wishes

                    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙

                    Justice for the 96 = achieved
                    Accountability? ....


                    • #55
                      It says 'Injury to the'

                      But no apparent reference as to what, unfortunately


                      • #56
                        It may be a little fanciful, but could there be some slightly dry strokes of the pen there if it was written in haste...could it be "Injury to tibia" ?

                        Just a thought



                        • #57
                          trying to delete, didn't realize this was an old thread
                          Last edited by curious; 08-05-2012, 01:52 AM.


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sally View Post
                            I think this may be Joseph Barnett in 1901 (spelling with one 't'):


                            In support of the identification, the following:

                            There are several points in favour of the identification - right name, location - close proximity to other known addresses for Barnett - and right profession. I also note that this Barnett is living with a woman to whom he is 'married', Emily Barnett, but that they appear to be without children. As we know that Barnett had no children, perhaps another point to consider. Against the identification is that the age is out by 5 years. That said, I've seen worse. Errors as to age, etc, and the dreaded 'variant spellings' are common enough in the Census returns generally for this to be a simple mistake.

                            I have failed so far to track these Barnet(t)s down elsewhere in the record. Perhaps the right question would be - what are the chances of two Joseph Barnetts living in close proximity to one another and working in the same trade?
                            This may be further support for your identification of this JB, Sally:

                            On Aug 18 1897 Daniel Barnett age 49 , of 66 Leman St, porter, was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary with an injury to his ribs. He was discharged on 26th Aug 1897, in the notes it says that he has a brother, Joseph Barnett, and Joseph's address is given as 4 James Place Cannon St Rd. SGE.

                            From other entries for this same Daniel I know he was a fish porter specifically.

                            Checking 4 James Place SGE in the 1891 and 1901 census the same family is living at that address, so were there when this was given as Joseph Barnett's address in 1897;
                            Thomas Hostler, variously a labourer and dock labourer, his wife Jane and their children Julia and Mary Ann (Juliah and Marianne in 1901) in both , son Thos in 1891 and a son George in 1901. The family have different lodgers in 1891 and 1901 but neither is Joseph Barnett.

                            The 1901 census entry posted here shows this Joseph Barnett and Emily also living with a family named Hostler; Isaac and his wife Annie and children. Checking the 1861 and 1871 census, I believe Isaac Hostler from the 1901 census and Thomas Hostler from the 1891, (1897) and 01 entries were in fact brothers.
                            Last edited by Debra A; 02-18-2016, 01:56 AM.


                            • #59
                              Thanks for posting this info Debs - very interesting to learn about the Hostler connection.

                              I haven't thought about JB in a while, but remain fairly confident that he's the JB that I identified above - not least because we can the 'right' JB beyond reasonable doubt and 'wife' Louisa in local infirmary records during the same time frame; and we know from later records that he lived in the immediate vicinity until his death in 1926.

                              When I was doggedly searching for JB in the historic record on the conviction that he had to be there somewhere - after all, to fall out of one census return may be considered a misfortune - to fall out of two begins to look like carelessness - I initially dismissed the 1901 entry as unlikely. It was on the second time round that I realised just how close the address of this JB was to that of 'our' JB - and that led me to consider it again.

                              I don't know what to make of 'Emily' though, as on face value it contradicts a set of records that suggest that JB was with Louisa from at least 1898; ten years earlier according to the 1911 census.

                              Maybe it's an error, a brief affair, or we should be looking for Emily Louisa or a Louisa Emily - but I don't know where you'd start, really.

                              Actually, now I think of it, I think I probably did start and didn't get very far....perhaps a couple of vaguely possibles from Bethnal Green, but a very long way from any serious potential identification.

                              Mysteries within mysteries as usual....


                              • #60
                                There doesn't seem to be an obvious marriage for a Joseph Barnet(t) to an Emily.

                                The Joseph Barnett who married in 1876 in Holborn seems to have married Emma Augusta (Weston F M Webb is with Emily in Notts in 1881) The one who married in 1887 in Hackney looks to have married Louise (Edward H Aldrich is with Emily in Hackney 1901). And the Joseph Edward Barnet who married 1899 in Mile End seems to be with Emily in 1911 as Barnett but they're not the right couple.