Barnett in 1901?

[Debra A]

I think this may be Joseph Barnett in 1901 (spelling with one 't'):

[ATTACH]10994[/ATTACH]

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.
STBG/WH/123/030

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.

[curious]

trying to delete, didn't realize this was an old thread

[Cogidubnus]

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

Dave

[Sally]

It says 'Injury to the'

But no apparent reference as to what, unfortunately

[Phil Carter]

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

Phil

[Debra A]

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!

[Sally]

Is this any better?



Hopefully its clearer.

[Debra A]

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

[ATTACH]11218[/ATTACH]

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.

[Lechmere]

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.

[Sally]

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.

[Lechmere]

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

[lynn cates]

left hand

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

Still looks a bit like a "T."

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

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

[Sally]

Hi Lynn, Debra -

I'll try to enlarge that section, yes. I don't know whether it will lost clarity once enlarged, but I'll give it a go.

Best wishes

Sally

[Debra A]

Here is the index entry for Joseph Barnett in 1903-4:

[ATTACH]11217[/ATTACH]

I'm not sure what it says - Injury to Head? Hand? Its difficult to tell because it appears to be an abbreviation.

What do people think?

Sally, is there any chance you could enlarge that section?

Great work!