James – Our Casbon Journey

Committed

April 29, 2020 adminLeave a comment

The Cambridge Chronicle of 26 April 1862 contained this brief report.

Cambridge Chronicle 26Apr1862 George C stole clothes — Newspaper image © The British Library Board. All rights reserved. With thanks
to The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk)

Commitments to the Castle. … George Casbon, Meldreth, and John Reed, Whaddon, running away from the Bassingbourn union with the clothes,
21 days each.

What does this mean? The report gives quite a bit of information, providing you understand some of the terminology and context.

It’s clear from reading the paragraph that all the named individuals have been accused of various crimes or infractions. What does it mean that they were committed to the Castle?

In Cambridgeshire, i.e., Cambridge County, the Castle was the nickname for the county jail (gaol in the U.K.). Thus, being committed to the Castle means being sentenced to spend time in the jail.

The term Castle comes from the fact that the original county jail was a former Norman castle. The castle was demolished in 1807 and a new jail built a short distance away. The Castle nickname remained with the new building. The site of the old castle is now called Castle Mound.

g6888 — View of Cambridge Castle and Plan of Cambridge Castle engraved by Warren and published in
Picturesque Views of the Antiquities of England & Wales, 1786; Public Domain, courtesy of
ancestryimages.com (Click on image to enlarge)

I have posted about people being committed to the Castle before. Ten-year-old John Casbon was briefly committed (before spending the rest of his seven-year sentence at a reform school) after being convicted of arson in 1852. James Casbon was sentenced to two months in the Castle for child neglect in 1870.

Who were George Casbon and John Reed?

George is one of the most common Casbon forenames, but only two Georges were born before 1862, one in 1836 and one in 1846. We can eliminate the first, George S. Casbon, for a few reasons. Although born in Meldreth, by 1862 he was no longer living there. He was married and working as a Wheelwright at Barley, Hertfordshire. The profile of a working man doesn’t match that of someone who would be running away from the Bassingbourn union, as I will explain.

That leaves George Casbon, the son of James and Elizabeth (Waller) Casbon, born at Meldreth 28 November 1846 and baptized there 16 March 1847, as the only remaining candidate.^[1] George’s mother, Elizabeth, died of consumption in 1852.^[2]

As to John Reed, I have found only one person by that name from Whaddon. He appears in the 1851 census as John Read, age 6.^[3] His sister Susanna Read, age 21, is listed as head of household and a pauper. The father, William Reed, died in 1847.^[4] Mary Reed, the mother, died in 1849.^[5] Thus, the household we see in the 1851 census consists of their orphaned children, with John being the youngest.

George Casbon and John Reed both would have been about 16 years old when they ran away from the Bassingbourn union; but what was the Bassingbourn union?

Bassingbourn union was another name for the Royston Union Workhouse. Royston is a large town located at the northern border of Hertfordshire. In 1862, the border between Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire ran through the middle of Royston. The Royston Union Workhouse was located on the north, or Cambridgeshire side, of Baldock Road. The workhouse was located within Bassingbourn Parish in Cambridgeshire, hence the term Bassingbourn union.

Cambs detail map 1834 — Detail map showing locations of Meldreth, Whaddon, and Royston; adapted from Map of the County of Cambridge, from an Actual Survey made in the years 1832 & 1833 (London: Greenwood & Co., 1834); courtesy of David Rumsey Map Collection (https://www.davidrumsey.com/); image reproduction copyright © 2000 by Cartography Associates (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Royston workhous map — Detail from Ordnance Survey map, showing location of Royston Union Workhouse; *Cambridgeshire LVIII.SW* (Southampton: Ordnance Survey Office, 1886); Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland, Creative Commons License

Workhouses were institutions created to house and feed the poor and infirm. Each workhouse was administered by a poor law union consisting of several parishes. The Royston workhouse was built in 1836 and designed to accommodate 300 inmates.^[6] In general, workhouses were segregated by sex and age: there were sections for the aged and infirm, children, able-bodied men, and able-bodied women.^[7] Inmates were issued clothing, usually made from coarse materials.^[8] Able-bodied inmates were expected to work, often at menial tasks; schooling and sometimes apprenticeships were provided to children.^[9]

Why were the two boys in the workhouse? In the case of John Reed, we know that he was an orphan. With no means of financial support, the workhouse was probably his only option.

The situation with George Casbon is more complicated. We know that he lost his mother in 1852. His younger sister, Emma, died at the workhouse (my emphasis) in November 1853.^[10] This suggests that after the death of George’s mother, either some or all of the children were sent to the workhouse.

My confusion is compounded by the fact that I haven’t been able to positively identify James Casbon or any of his children (except for daughter, Lydia, who was married) in the 1861 England census. I have speculated that James and his son Thomas were listed (in the 1861 census) in the village of Cottenham with the surname Randle. In addition, I think I’ve found James’s two youngest sons, George and John, at the Royston workhouse. The census uses initials for the inmates. Among these are the initials “C.G.” and “C.J.” (the first initial represents the surname), both from Meldreth.^[11] Incidentally, the initials “R.J.,” which might stand for John Reed, from Whaddon, are also present on the same census page.

The final detail from the Cambridge Chronicle article is that the two boys were committed to the Castle for the offense of “running away from the Bassingbourn union with the clothes.” It’s unclear whether the offense was running away or taking the clothes, although I suspect it was the latter. I wish there was a little more detail. Which clothes did they take—their own or those belonging to other inmates? What did they intend to do with the clothes? Such is the way with family research—you never have all the answers.

What became of George and John? I’ll save most of George’s life for later posts but will say here that he eventually married and had a family of his own. He died at the village of Fowlmere, 18 October 1897.^[12] He was 51 years old.

John Reed’s fate is unknown. I haven’t been able to identify him in any records after 1862.

[1] Meldreth (Cambridgeshire) Parish Records, baptisms [1813–1867], p. 63, no. 501; browsable images, FamilySearch ((https://familysearch.org/search/film/007567609?cat=210742 : accessed 28 Apr 2017).
[2] England, General Register Office, death registration, Royston & Buntingford/Melbourn, 1852, vol. 3A/134, no. 117.
[3] 1851 England census, Whaddon (Cambridgeshire), enumeration district 11, p. 4, line 12; imaged at Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8860 : accessed 24 Apr 2020) >Cambridgeshire >Whaddon >4 >image 5 of 23.
[4] “England, Cambridgeshire Bishop’s Transcripts, 1599-1860,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1465708 : accessed 24 Apr 2020) >007681883 >image 704 of 733.
[5] “England, Cambridgeshire Bishop’s Transcripts, 1599-1860,” accessed 24 Apr 2020 >007681883 > image 709 of 733.
[6] Peter Higginbotham,“Royston, Herfordshire,” in The Workhouse: The story of an institution … (http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Royston/ : accessed 24 Apr 2020).
[7] “Workhouse,” Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse#1834_Act : accessed 24 Apr 2020), rev. 18 Mar 2020, 01:28.
[8] Higginbotham, “Workhouse Uniform,” in The Workhouse: The story of an institution … .
[9] Higginbotham, “Work” and “Children in the Workhouse,” in The Workhouse: The story of an institution … .
[10] England, General Register Office, death registration, Royston & Buntingford/Melbourn, 1853, vol. 3A/107, no. 319.
[11] 1861 England census, Bassingbourn (Cambridgeshire), enumeration district 5, p. 77 (stamped) verso (6^th page of entries for Royston Union Workhouse), lines 4 & 5; Ancestry (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8767 : accessed 24 April 2020) >Cambridgeshire >Bassingbourn >District 5 >image 23 of 25; National Archives.
[12] “Deaths,” Saffron Walden (Essex) Weekly News, 22 Oct 1897, p. 8, col. 8; British Newspaper Archive (accessed 14 Sep 2017.

Five Families, Eleven Weddings

April 20, 2020April 20, 2020 Jon CasbonLeave a comment

Slocum … I’ve heard that name before; I wonder if she’s related?

Today’s post is an outgrowth of the two previous posts, in which I explored the connections between the Casbon and Aylesworth family trees. While conducting my Aylesworth research, I came upon the name of Martha Slocum, who married Philip Aylesworth, a member of the fourth generation of his family in America and a direct ancestor of many living Casbons.

The name Slocum was not new to me. William Wallace Slocum married Mary Casbon in Ohio, 1862.^[1] After Mary died, he married Emma Payne in 1865 (see “From England to America, Part 8”).^[2] Mary Casbon was the niece of Thomas Casbon, the original immigrant from England, and Emma Payne was the niece of Thomas’s wife, Emma Scruby. Emma Payne’s mother, Sarah Scruby, was married to James Payne of Meldreth, Cambridgeshire, England.

A little digging showed that Martha and William Wallace Slocum were distantly related. They were both descended from Giles Slocum ( ? –1682), who immigrated from England to Rhode Island before 1648.^[3] Martha was descended from Giles’s son Samuel and William Wallace from Giles’s son Eleazar. Martha was in the fifth generation of descendants and William Wallace in the seventh.

So now I knew that the Slocum, Aylesworth, and Casbon families were all related to one another.

Furthermore, with William Wallace Slocum’s marriage to Emma Payne, the Slocums became connected to the Scruby family, who were already related to the Casbons through the marriage of Emma Scruby to Thomas Casbon and later through the marriage of Mary Payne (Emma Payne’s sister) to James Casbon.

Are you confused yet?

I decided to plot out all the ways that the Slocum, Aylesworth, Scruby (including Payne), and Casbon families were related. I added a fifth family, Priest, because I was aware of multiple connections on their part as well. Here is the result of my efforts.

Diagram depicting interconnected family trees of the Slocum (green), Aylesworth (orange), Scruby (pink), Casbon (blue) and Priest (yellow) families. Superscript numbers denote generations, with “1” depicting either the original immigrant (Slocum and Aylesworth) or the common ancestor (Scruby, Casbon, and Priest); colored lines indicate parent-child relationships and arrows depict direct descent through multiple generations; marriages are connected by black lines (Click on image to enlarge)

You’ll need to enlarge the diagram to see details.

As the title suggests, these five families are connected to each other through eleven marriages. Here is a summary of the connections for each family:

Slocum:
– Connected to Aylesworth through the marriage of Martha⁵ Slocum to Philip⁴ Aylesworth, 1762^[4]
– Connected to Casbon through the marriage of William Wallace⁷ Slocum to Mary³ Casbon, 1862
– Connected to Scruby through the marriage of William Wallace⁷ Slocum to Emma³ Payne, 1865
Aylesworth:
– Connected to Slocum through the marriage of Philip⁴ Aylesworth to Martha⁵ Slocum, as above
– Connected to Casbon through the marriages of Mary Adaline⁷ Aylesworth to Sylvester³ Casbon, 1860,^[5] and Carrie Belle⁹ Aylesworth to Amos³ Casbon, 1900^[6]
– Connected to Scruby through the marriage of Louisa⁸ Aylesworth to George³ Scruby, 1872^[7]
– Connected to Priest through the marriage of Elliot⁷ Aylesworth to Caroline² Priest, 1848^[8]
Scruby:
– Connected to Slocum through the marriage of Emma³ Payne to William Wallace⁷ Slocum, as above
– Connected to Aylesworth through the marriage of George³ Scruby to Louisa⁸ Aylesworth, as above
– Connected to Casbon through the marriages of Emma² Scruby to Thomas² Casbon, 1830,^[9] and Mary³ Payne to James² Casbon, 1876^[10]
– Connected to Priest through the marriage of James² Scruby to Phebe² Priest, 1824^[11]
Casbon:
– Connected to Slocum through the marriage of Mary³ Casbon to William Wallace⁷ Slocum, as above
– Connected to Aylesworth through the marriages of Sylvester³ Casbon to Mary Adaline⁷ Aylesworth and Amos³ Casbon to Carrie Belle⁹ Aylesworth, as above
– Connected to Scruby through the marriages of Thomas² Casbon to Emma² Scruby and James² Casbon to Mary³ Payne, as above
– Connected to Priest through the marriage of Mary Ann³ Casbon to Elijah² Priest, 1853^[12]
Priest:
– Connected to Aylesworth through the marriage of Caroline² Priest to Elliot⁷ Aylesworth, as above
– Connected to Scruby through the marriage of Phebe² Priest to James² Scruby
– Connected to Casbon through the marriage of Elijah² Priest to Mary Ann³ Casbon, as above

Three of the families—Aylesworth, Scruby, and Casbon—are connected by marriage to all four of the remaining families. The remaining two families—Slocum and Priest—are connected to three of the other four families. Of the marriages, one took place in England, one in Rhode Island, six in Ohio, and three in Indiana.

The chart shows how entangled family trees can become. I’m going to coin a new term for this. Instead of a family tree, this is a family hedge! It’s an accurate description of what we see, with branches from several families intermingling and creating complex relationships.

I suspect this occurs more often than we might realize, but we might not see it because we’re not looking for it. Have you discovered any hedges in your family history?

[1] Ohio, Huron County, Marriage Records, vol. 1 [1855–1866], p. 350; imaged as “Ohio, County Marriages, 1789–2013,” FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XZ65-99 : accessed 21 Jul 2016) >Huron >Marriage Records 1855–1866 vol 1 >image 220 of 306.
[2] Ohio, Huron County, Marriage Records, vol. 1 [1855–1866], p. 465, no. 2779; imaged as “Ohio, County Marriages, 1789–2013,” FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XZ65-99 : accessed 22 May 2018) >Huron >Marriage Records 1855–1866 vol 1 >image 277 of 306.
[3] “Giles Slocum (abt. 1623 – aft. 1683),” article, WikiTree (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Slocum-10 : accessed 9 Apr 2020).
[4] James Newell Arnold, Rhode Island Vital Extracts, 1636–1850, volume 1 (Providence, R.I.: Narragansett Historical Publishing Company, 1891), p. 4; imaged at Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/3897/ : accessed 2 Apr 2020) >Vol· 01: Kent County: Births, Marriages, Deaths >image 432 of 637.
[5] Indiana, Porter County, Marriage Record Book 2 [Dec. 1850–Jun. 186], p. 458; Valparaiso (Indiana) Public Library.
[6] Indiana, Porter County, Marriage Record, vol. 12 [Nov. 1898–Oct. 1901], p. 326; browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/005014498?cat=608739 : accessed 8 Apr 2020) > Film # 005014497 >image 548 of 922.
[7] Ohio, Holmes County, Marriage Record, vol. 5 [1868–1877], p. 217; browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/004024929?cat=229343 : accessed 8 Apr 2020) > Ohio, County Marriages, 1789-2013 >Holmes >Marriage records 1868-1877 vol 5 >image 491 of 649.
[8] Ohio, Wayne County, Marriage Record, vol. 4B [1843–1851], p. 377; browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/004260649?cat=335541 : accessed 26 Aug 2016) >Film # 004260649 >image 550 of 644.
[9] Church of England, Melbourn (Cambridgeshire), Marriages, 1813–1837, p. 59, no. 175; browsable images, ” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007549343?cat=210722 : accessed 5 Feb. 2019) >image 318 of 710.
[10] Indiana, Porter County, Marriage Record, vol. 4 [Sep. 1871–Jan. 1875], p. 348; browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/005014495?cat=608739 : accessed 8 Apr 2020) > Film # 005014494 >image 693 of 928.
[11] Ohio, Wayne County, Marriage Record, vol. 4A [1835–1843], p. 91; browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/004260649?cat=335541 : accessed 8 Apr 2020) >Film # 004260649 >image 77 of 644.
[12] Ohio, Wayne County, Marriage Record, vol. 4 (1-2) [1844–1856], p. 140; FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/004260672?cat=335541 : accessed 8 Apr 2020) > Film # 004260672 >image 97 of 720.

Color!

March 26, 2020 admin6 Comments

At this moment, most if not all of my readers are practicing some form of “social distancing” because of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. I hope you are all staying well and coping with the difficulties associated with this historic situation.

With today’s post, I have a suggestion that will hopefully lift your spirits and alleviate any boredom you might be experiencing. The suggestion comes courtesy of the MyHeritage genealogy website. Back in February (it seems so long ago!), MyHeritage introduced MyHeritage in Color™, a feature that automatically colorizes black and white photographs. As an introductory offer, users could upload and colorize up to ten photos. Once the limit was reached, a user would need a paid subscription to continue using the feature. I tried it out and was impressed with the results. However, I did not opt for the paid subscription.

A few days ago, I was surprised to receive this email message from MyHeritage.

Yes, they are offering “free and unlimited access” to this feature. I took them up on the offer and went through my collection and colorized about 200 photos. More importantly, if you have old photos stashed away, you might want to try it out yourself. It’s a good way to stay active if you’re stuck at home. This shows what a photo looks like before and after colorization.

Sylvester and Mary (Mereness) Casbon, with Sylvester’s descendants; about 1905,
Valparaiso, Indiana; author’s collection (Click on image to enlarge)

The results are impressive. The process uses artificial intelligence (AI) to decide which colors to use and where to place them. The computer algorithms are very good, but not perfect. If you look carefully at the photo above, you’ll see that the right hand of the girl standing in the front row is still gray. The AI failed to identify it as a body part. You can see a more extreme version of this in this detail from a photograph of Amos and Carrie Casbon’s family.

Detail from photograph of Amos and Carrie (Aylesworth) Casbon’s family and
home near Boone Grove, Indiana, about 1911; courtesy of Ron Casbon

The AI has missed two of the children altogether, making them look like clay sculptures.

On the other hand, some of the results are amazing. The AI seems particularly good at producing flesh tones, hair color, and vegetation. In most cases, it seems to do a good job with clothing as well. I would think that better quality scanned images are more likely to fare well, but I’ve had good results with poor quality originals.

Jesse John II and Elizabeth (Ryan) Casbon, Cocoa Beach, Florida; adapted
from an iphone photo of the original; courtesy of John N. Casbon

You can also see that the MyHeritage logo gets added to the colorized image—a small price to pay, in my opinion.

Do you have old black and white family photos or snapshots? I encourage you to try this out. Visit https://www.myheritage.com/incolor, where you’ll need to sign up for a free account. You’ll need to scan your black and white photos to make digital copies so you can upload them to the web page. I suggest you use a scanning resolution of 300 dots per inch or better.

Here are some of the favorites from my collection.

Left: Sylvester and Mary (Mereness) Casbon, courtesy of Ilaine Church;
Right: Reuben and Elizabeth (Neyland) Casben, courtesy of Phil Long

Lawrence and Kate (Marquart) Casbon and family; seated on the horse, L to R, are Lynnet, Loring and Leslie; about 1898 near Hebron, Porter County, Indiana; courtesy of Don Casbon (Click on image to enlarge)

Left: James Casbon; Right: Amos and Carrie Belle (Aylesworth) Casbon; both courtesy of Ron Casbon

Left: Donald Glen Casbon (L) and Herbert Aylesworth (R) Casbon, undated; courtesy of Michael J. Casbon;
Right: L to R—Herman, Harriet, and Floyd Casbon; courtesy of Claudia Vokoun (Click on images to enlarge)

Lynnet Casbon and an unidentified man delivering a refrigerator in
Valparaiso, Indiana, about 1940; courtesy of Dave Casbon

Margaret (Donovan) Casban (second from left), her daughter Nell (third from left),
and others, hops picking in Sussex, England, early 1930s; courtesy of Alice Casban

James Casbal of Therfield

March 19, 2020April 15, 2020 admin1 Comment

Much of today’s post is based on supposition. I will try to distinguish between firm conclusions and those based on weaker evidence.

Our story begins with a marriage that took place 23 November 1778 in the village of Therfield, Hertfordshire. James Casbal, a cordwainer (shoemaker) and bachelor, married Sarah Crouch, a spinster (unmarried woman).^[1]

Excerpt from Therfield parish records, showing marriage of James Casbal and Sarah Crouch,
23 November 1778 (Click on image to enlarge)

The marriage record tells us that both James and Sarah were from the parish of Therfield. We can also see that both signed with their mark, an indication of some degree of illiteracy. Therfield is a small village in Hertfordshire, located about 2 ½ miles southwest of Royston, and more importantly, about 6 miles from Meldreth, Cambridgeshire. Meldreth is the ancestral home of many of the today’s Casbons, Casbans and Casbens.

Detail of a map of England showing southern Cambridgeshire (green), northern Hertfordshire (red, bottom center), and adjacent counties; the relative locations of Meldreth, Therfield, and Litlington are indicated; adapted from John Cary, “A new map of England, from the latest authorities” (London: John Cary, 1809); downloaded from David Rumsey Map Collection (davidrumsey.com); Creative Commons License

The marriage of James and Sarah is the first instance where “Casbal” or related surnames appear in Therfield records, so we can make a safe assumption that James was not born there. Casb—l was an early variant of the Casbon surname and appears in various parish records during the late 1700s. Members of the Crouch family had been living in Therfield for several generations.

James and Sarah had a daughter, Ann, who was baptized at Therfield 24 January 1780.^[2] However, the birth apparently caused Sarah’s death, since her burial was recorded on
21 January.^[3]

James was soon remarried, this time to Martha Crouch, on 13 August 1780.^[4] Sarah and Martha were probably cousins. James and Martha had a daughter, Lydia, who was buried on 24 October 1782, just 10 days after her baptism.^[5]

Lydia’s burial marks the last record of this family in Therfield. This suggests that the family might have moved to a different location.

I believe that location was Litlingon, Cambridgeshire. Litlington is another small village, located about 3 ½ miles north of Therfield and 4 ½ miles from Meldreth (see map, above). Litlington parish records reveal that James Causbell, a shoemaker, was buried there on 31 August 1804.^[6]

Burial record of James Causbell; detail from Litlington parish registers, 1804 (Click on image to enlarge)

Although I can’t be certain, the fact that he was a shoemaker provides circumstantial evidence that James of Litlington was the same man who was married at Therfield in 1778. There just weren’t that many men with that surname or its variants and I have been able to account for most of the others.

Where did James come from? I believe he was the son of John (about 1721–1796) and Ann (Chamberlain) Casborn of Meldreth. We have met John before. Born in Orwell, he served his apprenticeship in Meldreth and presumably stayed there for the rest of his life. He was also appointed as the parish clerk in his later years. John is one of the earliest identified ancestors of many of today’s living Casbons (also Casbans and Casbens). John and Ann had two sons named James; the first died in infancy. The second was baptized at Meldreth
6 November 1848.^[7]

Detail from Meldreth parish registers showing the baptism of James Casbull in 1848 (Click on image to enlarge)

It is notable that John Casborn was also a cordwainer. This is part of the reason I believe James of Therfield to be his son. The other reason is that I can find no other records—no burial or marriage record—of James in Meldreth. My theory is that James learned the shoemaking trade from his father and then moved to Therfield, where he was married and started a family. He moved to nearby Litlington some time before his death in 1804. Unfortunately, his age is not given in the burial record, so this cannot be used as another point of comparison.

There is one other piece of evidence that supports the theory. It is the record of baptism for James Causbell at Litlington 29 March 1819.^[8]

Detail from Bishop’s Transcripts, Litlingon Parish, Cambridgeshire, 1819, showing
the baptism of James Causbell 29 March 1819 (Click on image to enlarge)

The record tells us that James was the “baseborn [illegitimate] son” of Ann Causbell. The father’s name is not given, but other records suggest that his name was Thomas Taylor, a labourer. Remember that James of Therfield had a daughter named Ann from his first marriage. The fact that the child’s name was James is also significant. Traditionally a first son would be named after the father’s father and the second son would be named after the mother’s father. But this was not a hard and fast rule, and in the case of illegitimacy, using the mother’s father’s name would be understandable.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find any other records relating to Ann or her son James, so their story ends in 1819. Nor have I been able to find any other records of James’s (of Therfield) second wife, Martha.

It’s a circumstantial case, but I think it’s reasonable to believe that the men named James Casbal/Causbell of Therfield and Litlington, and the child baptized as James Casbull at Meldreth in 1748 are the same person. If so, he would have been the brother of Thomas Casbon (about 1743–1799), my fifth great-grandfather.

[1] Hertfordshire, Therfield Parish, Register of Marriages, 1778, p. 27, no. 112; imaged as “Hertfordshire Banns & Marriages,” Findmypast (https://search.findmypast.com/search-world-Records/hertfordshire-banns-and-marriages : accessed 15 Feb 2017).
[2] “England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1473014 : accessed 19 Mar 2020).
[3] Hertfordshire, Therfield Parish, general register, “Burials 1780”; imaged as “Hertfordshire Burials,” Findmypast (https://search.findmypast.com/search-world-Records/hertfordshire-burials : accessed 15 Feb 2017).
[4] “England Marriages, 1538-1973,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1473015 : accessed 19 Mar 2020).
[5] Hertfordshire, Therfield Parish, general register, “Burials 1782”; imaged as “Hertfordshire Burials,” Findmypast (https://search.findmypast.com/search-world-Records/hertfordshire-burials : accessed 15 Feb 2017).
[6] Cambridgeshire, Litlington, Bishop’s Transcripts, 1804; browsable images, “Bishop’s transcripts for Litlington, 1599-1864,” FamilySearch (catalog) (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007561135?cat=976865 : accessed 19 Mar 2020) >DGS Film no. 007561135 >image 186 of 460.
[7] Parish of Meldreth (Cambridgeshire, England), General Register Volume P118/1/1 [1682–1782], n.p. (baptisms 1746-50), James Casbull, 6 Nov 1748; accessed as “Parish registers for Meldreth, 1681-1877,” browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007567609?cat=210742 : accessed 29 August 2017) >DGS film no. 007567609 >image 110 of 699.
[8] Cambridgeshire, Litlington, Bishop’s Transcripts, baptisms, 1819; browsable images, “Bishop’s transcripts for Litlington, 1599-1864,” FamilySearch (catalog) (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007561135?cat=976865 : accessed 19 Mar 2020) >DGS Film no. 007561135 >image 231 of 460.

Shoreditch—a Tale of Woe

March 14, 2020 admin2 Comments

Today’s post starts with a record I recently found on Ancestry. The record comes from a register of admissions and discharges from the Shoreditch workhouse in London.^[1]

Detail from an alphabetical register of admissions and discharges, Shoreditch workhouse, 1827, showing entries for William and Sophia Casbon, admitted on 13 March and again on 11 April. (Click on image to enlarge)

The record shows that William Casbon, age 43, and Sophia Casbon, age 27, were admitted to the workhouse 13 March 1827 and discharged 9 April “with 3/ [shillings?].” They were admitted again from 11 to 30 April 1827, and this time discharged “with 25/ to redeem his Furniture [or Furnishing?].” They were admitted to wards 8 and 10, presumably men’s and women’s wards, respectively.

Who were William and Sophia Casbon and why were they in the Shoreditch workhouse? A marriage record from 1822 shows that William Casbon, a bachelor, married Sophia Phillips, a spinster, in the Parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, London, on 1 December 1822.^[2] Bethnal Green is a short distance east of Shoreditch. I know this is the correct couple because of another record presented later in this post.

Detail from Register of Marriages, St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, 1822.
Note that William and Sophia each signed with their marks.

Based on the ages written in the workhouse register, William would have been born in about 1784 and Sophia in about 1800. I have an extensive database of baptismal records for Casbon and related surnames throughout England. Baptisms were recorded for William Caseburn in 1780 (Downham, Norfolk), William Casebourn in 1788 (Soham, Cambridgeshire), and William Casbolt in 1789 (Linton, Cambridgeshire), but there is nothing to connect them to William of Shoreditch. The marriage of John Casbon to Elizabeth Toon was recorded at St. Leonard’s Shoreditch in 1783, so it’s possible they were either William’s parents or related to him in some way.^[3] There is no evidence that William comes from the Meldreth or Peterborough Casbon lines.

Sophia Phillips was a common name and there are many corresponding baptismal records. Without knowing the names of her parents, it is impossible to tell where or when she was born.

Shoreditch is an ancient suburb of London and is now part of inner London. By the early to mid 1800s, it was mainly a lower and working class area.

Detail of an 1827 map of London; approximate location of Shoreditch is circled; arrow points to St. Leonard’s Church; John & Christopher Greenwood, “Map of London, From an actual Survey made in the Years 1824, 1825 & 1826” (London: Greenwood, Pringle & Co., 1827); digital image, David Rumsey Historical Map Collection (https://davidrumsey.com : accessed 13 Mar 2020); Creative Commons License. (Click on image to enlarge)

Workhouses were institutions designed to support the poor with food, lodging and medical care. While charitable in nature, conditions in the workhouses were often so bad that only the truly desperate would seek admission. “Men, women, children, the infirm, and the able-bodied were housed separately and given very basic and monotonous food such as watery porridge called gruel, or bread and cheese. All inmates had to wear the rough workhouse uniform and sleep in communal dormitories.”^[4] Thus, we can infer that William and Sophia were admitted to the workhouse because of difficult circumstances. They would have desired to get out as soon as their situation allowed.

The couple had at least three children. A daughter, Elizabeth, was baptized at the City of London Lying-in Hospital, St. Luke’s Parish, on 26 August 1829.^[5] Elizabeth’s burial at St. Leonard Church, Shoreditch, was recorded on 29 July 1831.^[6] A son named Joseph or John (both names are used in different records) was born in about December 1832 and died at Shoreditch workhouse one year later.^[7] Finally, another son, James, was born at the Shoreditch workhouse on 30 May 1834.^[8]

Seven weeks after James was born, Sophia was interviewed at the Shoreditch workhouse and revealed some startling news.^[9]

Statement of Sophia Casbon, Shoreditch Poor Law Union, 21 Jul 1834. (Click on image to enlarge)

July 21
Sophia Casben – No 5 New Court Webb Sqr
Saith that she is 33 years of age is the wife
of Wm Casben to whom she was married in
Bethnal Green Church on 1^st Decr – 1821 and
by him hath one child named James aged
7 weeks –
She has been informed that when she was
married to him he had a wife then living.
So she was informed by a Mrs Thompson who
then lived in No [blank] Brick Lane above[?] a
silk winder –
That she hath not seen him for above
4 months – that she doth not know where
he resides or is to be found –

So, we learn the terrible news that Sophia has been abandoned by her husband and that he married her when he was already married to another woman.

There is a marriage record of William Casbourn to Margaret Black at St. James Church, Westminster in May 1817^[10] and records of children born to this marriage, but there is insufficient evidence to prove that he is the man who later married Sophia. It is not possible to positively identify William through later census or death records. Thus, we lose track of him at Sophia’s last sighting in early 1834.

I’ve drawn up a chronology of this family’s story as far as I’ve been able to trace it.

About 1784: William Casbon is born, location unknown
About 1800: Sophia Phillips is born, location unknown
1 December 1822: William and Sophia are married, St. Matthew Church, Bethnal Green
13 March 1827: William and Sophia are admitted to Shoreditch workhouse; discharged
9 April
11 April 1827: William and Sophia are admitted to Shoreditch workhouse; discharged 30 April
26 August 1829: Elizabeth Casbon, daughter of William & Sophia, is baptized, City of London Lying-in Hospital, St. Luke Parish, Westminster
29 Jul 1831: Elizabeth is buried, St. Leonard Church, Shoreditch
About December 1832: Joseph/John Casbon is born (based on age given in subsequent records)
26 September 1833: Sophia and Joseph/John Casbon are admitted to Shoreditch workhouse; discharged 5 October^[11]
10 October 1833: Sophia and Joseph/John Casbon are admitted to Shoreditch workhouse; Joseph/John dies there 7 December and is buried 17 December at St. Leonard Church, Shoreditch; Sophia is discharged 18 December^[12]
6 January 1834: Sophia is admitted, Shoreditch workhouse; discharged 10 January^[13]
15 February 1834: Sophia is admitted, Shoreditch workhouse; discharged
24 February^[14]
24 February 1834: Sophia is readmitted, Shoreditch workhouse; discharged
27 February^[15]
30 May 1834: James Casbon is born at Shoreditch workhouse (baptized at St. Leonard Church, Shoreditch, 19 June 1834)^[16]
21 July 1834: Sophia reports her husband missing for the previous four months
15 August 1835: Sophia and James are admitted to Shoreditch workhouse; both are transferred to Enfield (poor house for infants) 20 August^[17]
18 March 1836: Sophia is admitted to Shoreditch workhouse; she dies there 8 July^[18]
11 July 1836: Sophia is buried, St. Leonard Church, Shoreditch^[19]
1841 census: James, age 7, is living at Enfield, District Workhouse for Shoreditch Poor Children^[20]
24 October 1843: James Casbon (age incorrectly listed as 11)—— is admitted to Shoreditch workhouse; unknown discharge date^[21]

We can see that from September 1833 until her death on 8 July 1836, Sophia was admitted to the Shoreditch workhouse on multiple occasions. Although the circumstances are not described, we can assume that she must have been desperately poor, and possibly ill for much of this time. Her young son Joseph died at the workhouse in 1833 and her next son, James, was born there five months later. In August 1835, Sophia and James were transferred to the Shoreditch Infant Poor House located at Enfield, about 10 miles north of London. James probably remained there throughout his early childhood. Sophia was probably in the final stages of an illness (tuberculosis?) when she was admitted to the Shoreditch workhouse for the last time in March 1836 and remained there until her death in July.

James, now an orphan, was still in the Children’s workhouse at Enfield when the 1841 census was taken. The last record we have of him is his admission to the Shoreditch workhouse in October 1843. It is unknown what happened to him after that, but as an orphan in Victorian London, it is unlikely that his story had a happy ending.

Detail from an alphabetical register of admissions and discharges, Shoreditch workhouse, 1843, showing admission of James Casborn on 24 October; the meaning of the “X” markings under “Discharged” and “Remarks” is unknown. (Click on image to enlarge).

The story of William and Sophia Casbon and their family is a sad addition to Our Casbon Journey. Their tragic tale would have been fitting for a Charles Dickens novel, minus the happy ending.

[1] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/60391/ : accessed 10 Mar 2020) >Hackney >Shoreditch >Alphabetical List Workhouse Admissions with Subsequent Discharges, 1823–1831 >image 51 of 190; citing London Metropolitan Archives; reference no. P91/LEN/1336.
[2] St. Matthews, Bethnal Green, Register of Marriages, vol 12 [1818–1823], p. 224, no. 672; imaged as “Parish registers for St. Matthew’s Church, Bethal Green, 1745–1900,” browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/008040614?cat=110313 : accessed 10 Mar 2020); Film DGS 8040614, item 4, image 774 of 838.
[3] Westminster, St. Leonard Parish, Register of Marriages [1883–1785], p. 49, no. 145; imaged as “London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754–1932, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1623/ : accessed 12 March 2020) > Hackney >St Leonard, Shoreditch >1783–1875 >image 25 of 263; London Metropolitan Archives, P91/LEN/A/01/Ms 7498/13.
[4] Peter Higginbotham, “Introduction,” The Workhouse: story of an institution … (http://workhouses.org.uk/intro/ : accessed 13 Mar 2020).
[5] Middlesex, Saint Luke Parish, City of London Lying in Hospital, Register of baptisms, 1829, p. 25, no. 196; imaged as “London, England, Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813–1917,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1558/ : accessed 12 March 2020) > Islington >City of London Lying-In Hospital, City Road, Finsbury >1820–1837 >image 161 of 296; London Metropolitan Archives, DL/T/013/017.
[6] Middlesex, St. Leonard Shoreditch, Register of Burials [1829–1832], p. 237, no. 1893; imaged as “London, England, Church of England Deaths and Burials, 1813–2003,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1559/ : accessed 12 Mar 2020) >Hackney >St Leonard, Shoreditch >1829–1832 >image 121 of 153; London Metropolitan Archives, P91/LEN/A/012/MS07499/019.
[7] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” >Hackney >Shoreditch >Alphabetical List Workhouse Admissions with Subsequent Discharges, 1832–1836 >image 34 of 173; London Metropolitan Archives, P91/LEN/1337.
[8] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” (same as above), image 36 of 173.
[9] Shoreditch, Westminster, England, Poor Law settlement papers, vol. “H” [Dec 1833–May 1838], p. 63, 21 Jul 1834; imaged as “London, England, Selected Poor Law Removal and Settlement Records,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2651/ : accessed 10 March 2020) >Shoreditch >Settlement Papers >1833 Dec–1838 May >image 74 of 309; citing London Metropolitan Archives, London; reference no. P91/LEN/1270.
[10] “England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/9852/ : accessed 12 Mar 2020), William Casbon & Sophia Phillips; citing FHL film no. 1042319.
[11] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” Ancestry, same as above, image 34 of 173.
[12] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” (same as above). Also, Middlesex, St. Leonard Shoreditch, Record of Burials [1832–1833], p. 241, no. 1921 (buried as “John Casburn); imaged as “London, England, Church of England Deaths and Burials, 1813–2003,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1559/ : accessed 12 Mar 2020) >Hackney >St Leonard, Shoreditch >1831–1833 >image 59 of 61; citing London Metropolitan Archives, DL/T/069/049.
[13] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” (same as above) >image 35
of 173.
[14] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” (same as above).
[15] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” (same as above).
[16] “England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975,” database, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/9841/ : accessed 12 Mar 2020), entry for James Casben.
[17] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” (same as above), image 38 of 173.
[18] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” (same as above), image 40 of 173.
[19] Middlesex, St. Leonard Shoreditch, Record of Burials [1834–1837], p. 188, no. 1497; Ancestry > Hackney >St Leonard, Shoreditch >1834–1837 >image 95 of 151; citing London Metropolitan Archives, P91/LEN/A/012/MS07499/021.
[20] 1841 England census, Middlesex, Enfield Parish, schedule for public institutions, Workhouse for Shoreditch Poor Children, p.3, line 15 (James Casburn); Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/8978/ : accessed 12 Mar 2020) >Middlesex Enfield District Workhouse For Shoreditch Poor Children >image 2 of 3; citing The National Archives, HO 107/653/8.
[21] “London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764–1930,” Ancestry >Hackney >Shoreditch >Alphabetical List Workhouse Admissions with Subsequent Discharges, 1837–1845 >image 72 of 387; London Metropolitan Archived, P91/LEN/1338.

William Scruby … or, “Aha,” Continued

February 23, 2020 admin3 Comments

In my last post I presented this news item from the Porter County (Indiana) Vidette of
27 August 1891.

Untitled news item, Porter County Vidette, 27 August 1891

I explained how finding this article had been an “aha” moment for me because it proved that Mary (Payne) Casbon and Emma/Rachel (Payne) Slocum were sisters. With this post I want to show how the article confirmed my belief that William Scruby was the son of James Scruby of Wooster, Ohio and the cousin of Mary and Emma/Rachel.

I need to step back 45 years earlier, to 1846, when Thomas Casbon and his family arrived in Ohio after leaving England. They chose to come to Wayne County, Ohio, because that is where James Scruby, the brother of Thomas’s wife, Emma, lived with his family.

James Scruby also had another sister, Sarah, who had married James Payne in England. Mary (i.e., “Mrs. James”) Casbon and Emma/Rachel Slocum were Sarah’s daughters. Therefore, the two sisters were first cousins to both James Scruby’s and Thomas Casbon’s children. This explains how William Scruby was related to the two sisters in the news item. However, before finding this news item, I had not been able to positively link William to Porter County, Indiana.

James Scruby, who was born about 1807, came to America in 1832. He appears in a document I call the “Isaac Manuscript,” because it is a handwritten family history that begins with Thomas Casbon’s father, Isaac.

Detail from an untitled manuscript, author unknown, ca. 1890-92,
describing Isaac Casbon and the descendants of his son Thomas

James Scruby came to United States of
America settled in Wayne Co Ohio
Married Pheobe [sic] Priest to them was
born seven children
Joab William Charles Sam George
are all dead excep [sic] two first named
no heirs left but George’s two boys
Bennett and Olen

James, a farmer, appears in the 1850 U.S. census with his wife Phoebe (or Phebe) and the five sons mentioned in the manuscript.^[1] (They also had a daughter who died in infancy. I haven’t been able to find evidence of a seventh child.)

Detail from 1850 U.S. census. Plain Township, Wayne County, Ohio (FamilySearch) (Click on image to enlarge)

Phoebe died in November 1851 and James died 11 months later, leaving the boys orphans ranging in age from 4 to 17 years old. Guardians were appointed for the boys, and Thomas Casbon was appointed as the guardian for William Scruby. The guardianship was required until William reached the age of 21, in about 1858. Thus, it’s possible that William lived in Thomas’s household until that time.

William’s brother Charles died from diptheria in 1863 while serving in the Union Army during the American Civil War. Samuel also served in the Union Army. He died of an unknown cause just one month after mustering out in June 1865. Brother George, who became a farmer in Wayne County, died in 1882. These deaths account for the statement “all dead excep two first named” in the Isaac Manuscript, above.

Joab Scruby, the oldest brother, became a teacher. He remained in Wayne County for many years, but eventually moved to Des Moines, Iowa, where he died in 1901. Contrary to what is said in the Isaac Manuscript, Joab had four sons, thus there were six heirs, including George’s two sons.

Returning to William, we find him listed in the 1860 census, in Wayne County, where he is reported as living alone in Plain Township, with the occupation of “Shoe Maker.”^[2] In 1863 he registered for the draft in Wayne County.^[3] However, there is no evidence that he ever served during the Civil War.

In the 1870 census, William Scruby, age 29, occupation “laborer,” and born in Ohio, was living in Boone Township, Porter County, Indiana.^[4] Was this the same William? The reported age is about four years too young for our William. Before finding the news item above, I could not be sure he was the same man. However, with that new piece of information, I had proof, or at least strong circumstantial evidence that William Scruby—the son of James Scruby of Ohio—was living in Porter County in 1891. Therefore, I think it is likely that he was also the man reported on the 1870 census. Unfortunately, I have never found a listing for him in the 1880 census and the 1890 census was lost in a fire.

Assuming that William was living in Porter County, Indiana, in 1870, it is certainly possible that he arrived there at about the same time as Thomas Casbon, who moved there from Ohio in 1865. The fact that William came to Porter County at all suggests that he maintained a close relationship with Thomas and Emma Casbon. Perhaps the fact that Thomas had been his guardian created a strong and lasting bond.

William died on 9 May 1900.^[5] His death was noted in the Porter County Vidette.

“Here and There … Death of Wm. Scobey,” Porter County Vidette, 17 May 1900, p. 2, col. 1; microfilm image, Valparaiso Public Library; William’s age is misstated—he was actually 67 years old

The strength of his relationship with his two female cousins is evidenced by the terms of his Will, in which he bequeathed 500 dollars to Mary and 250 dollars to Emma.

“Will of William Scruby,” Porter County Vidette, 24 May 1900, p. 1, col. 2;
microfilm image, Porter County Public Library

William’s death ended a chapter of the story that began when his father, James Scruby, came to America in 1832, followed by Thomas Casbon and Emma/Rachel Payne in 1846, Mary Payne in 1856, and James Casbon in 1870. The story shows how family ties formed a bridge between continents, how those ties played an important role in the immigration to America, and how they continued to influence lives over the course of several decades.

[1] 1850 U.S. census, Wayne County, Ohio, Plain Township, p. 382 (stamped), dwelling 397, family 407 (surname indexed as “Lemly”; FamilySearch.org.
[2] 1860 U.S. census, Wayne County, Ohio, Plain Township, p. 52, dwelling 401, family 400; FamilySearch.org.
[3] Records of the Provost Marshall General’s Bureau, Enrollment Lists and Corrections, 1863-1865, Ohio, 14th Congressional District, Class 1, (L-Z), p. 431; contained in “Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 1863-1865,” database with images, Ancestry.com > Ohio >14th > Vol 2 of 3 >image 318 of 549; citing NARA, RG 110.
[4] 1870 U.S. census, Porter County, Indiana, Boone Twp., page 17, dwelling & family 137, William Scruby (indexed as “Sernby”) in household of Henry Smity; FamilySearch.org.
[5] Indiana, State Board of Health, Certificate of Death, no. 189, Porter County, Boone Township, 9 May 1900, William Scruby; imaged as “Indiana, Death Certificates, 1899-2011,” Ancestry.com >Certificate >1899 – 1900 >15 >image 24 of 3028.

A Visit to Ohio

February 18, 2020April 15, 2020 adminLeave a comment

aha moment
noun informal.
1. a point in time, event, or experience when one has a sudden insight or realization.^[1]

Most of the time, genealogy research is fairly routine. You ask a question—“when was so-and-so born?”—and look for records that might answer the question. You either find the answer or you don’t, and then you move on. What can make it fun is when you have that “aha” moment—when the answer to a question pops up quite unexpectedly. Has this ever happened to you?

I had such a moment last year when I was browsing through old newspaper articles on microfilm in the Valparaiso (Porter County , Indiana) Public Library. I found this in the Porter County Vidette of 27 August 1891.

Untitled news item, Porter County Vidette, 27 August 1891

This single sentence answered not one but two questions that I had all but given up on finding the answers to. The questions were:

Was Mary Payne, who married James Casbon in 1876, the same Mary Payne who arrived in Ohio from England with Mary Casbon in 1856?
Was William Scruby who lived in Porter County, Indiana in the late 1800s, the son of James Scruby of Wooster, Ohio?

After finding this article, it was clear to me that the answer to both questions was yes!

Some background information will help you see how I came to these conclusions. Accordingly, let me introduce a brief cast of characters:

Emma Scruby (1811–1870): the wife of Thomas Casbon (1803–1888)

Emma or Rachel Payne (b. 1830): a niece of Emma (Scruby) Casbon; daughter of Emma’s sister Sarah (Scruby) Payne

Mary Payne (b. 1832 or 33): another niece of Emma (Scruby) Casbon; sister of Emma/Rachel Payne

William Scruby (b. abt. 1837): a nephew of Emma (Scruby) Casbon; son of Emma’s brother, James Scruby; also a first cousin of Emma/Rachel and Mary Payne

James Casbon (1813–1884), the brother of Thomas Casbon

The Scruby family plays an important role in the story of the Casbon family in the United States. When Thomas and Emma (Scruby) Casbon migrated from England to Ohio in 1846, they were greeted by Emma’s older brother James Scruby, who left England in 1832 and settled near Wooster, Wayne County, Ohio. Thomas and Emma lived and raised their family in Ohio, initially in Wayne County, and later, a few miles south in Holmes County. James undoubtedly influenced their decision to emigrate and helped them to get settled.

In addition to their own family, Thomas and Emma brought Emma’s niece “Rachell [sic] or Emma Payne” with them from England. Two names are given for this niece because she is referred to in various records by either of these names and is also recorded as “Emma R. Payne.”

Ten years after the arrival of Thomas and Emma Casbon, Emma/Rachel’s sister, Mary Payne migrated from England to Ohio, along with Thomas Casbon’s niece, Mary Casbon, who was the daughter of Thomas’s deceased brother, Joseph. This story is told in a handwritten family history.

Detail from an untitled manuscript, author unknown, ca. 1890-92, describing Isaac Casbon
and the descendants of his son Thomas; note the term “Rachell or Emma Payne”

Mary Payne & Rachell or Emma Payne
came to America & They were the
daughters of Sarah Scruby sister to
Emma wife of Thomas Casbon
Mary Payne came to America in
the year 1856 Mary Casbon daughter of
Joseph Casbon who was a brother of
Thomas Casbon came to America with
Mary Payne Emma came with the
Family of Thomas Casbon to America

The story gets convoluted at this point. Mary Casbon, Thomas’s niece, married William Wallace Slocum in 1862.^[2] Mary evidently died within a few years. Mr. Slocum next married Emma R. Payne on 23 March 1865.^[3] In addition to the official marriage records, we find this part of the story published in a history of the Slocum family.

Detail from Charles Elihu Slocum, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D., History of the Slocums, Slocumbs and Slocombs of America
(Defiance, Ohio: privately published, 1908), vol. 2:129; the peculiar spelling is due to the fact that the
author was an adherent of a movement to simplify spellings in the English language.

We know from the description of her birthplace and voyage to America that Mr. Slocum’s third wife was same woman who emigrated to America with Thomas and Emma Casbon.

Through her marriage Emma/Rachel became the “Mrs. Rachel Slocum” referred to in the 1891 news brief. We can place Emma/Rachel in Shiloh, Ohio, because that is where her husband died in 1888.

But what of her sister Mary? Although she arrived in Ohio in 1856, Mary does not appear in the 1860 or 1870 censuses and I haven’t been able to find any trace of her during this time frame.

Enter, stage left, James Casbon. In 1870, James emigrated from England to Indiana, where his brother Thomas had been living since 1865. James married a woman named Mary Payne at Porter County, Indiana, in 1876, following the death of his wife Mary neé Jackson.

The marriage record of James Casbon and Mary Payne, Porter County, Indiana, 15 January 1876;
“Indiana Marriages, 1811–2007” (FamilySearch); citing Porter County Marriage Records, vol. 4:348
(Click on image to enlarge)

Was James Casbon’s wife the sister of Emma/Rachel Slocum? I thought she might be but did not have enough evidence to prove the relationship. James and Mary appear together in the 1880 U.S. census in Porter County. Her age was reported as 53, which would give her a birth year of about 1827—about five years earlier than expected for Emma/Rachel’s sister. Her birthplace was reported as England, so at least that fact fit the theory.

The question remained unresolved for several years until my “aha” moment arrived last year. “Mrs. James Casborn [sic]” was going to visit her sister, “Mrs. Rachel Slocum,” in Shilo [sic] O[hio]. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! The missing link was found!

There is still a lot of missing information. Where was Mary Payne between 1856 and 1876? When did she move to Indiana? What circumstances led to her marriage to James Casbon? My guess is that she either followed her aunt Emma and uncle Thomas Casbon to Indiana, or that she came with William Scruby, who was her cousin. Although it is common for relatives to remain in proximity to one another, it is still intriguing to me that the paths of Emma and Thomas Casbon, James Casbon, William Scruby, and Mary Payne intersected in so many places and points in time.

But what of William Scruby? He has had only had a minor role in today’s story. His story will be next.

[1] “aha moment,” Dictionary.com (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/aha-moment )
[2] “Ohio, County Marriages, 1789-2013 ” (FamilySearch) )>Huron >Marriage Records 1855-1866 vol 1 >image 220 of 306; citing Huron County.
[3] “Ohio, County Marriages, 1789-2013 ” (FamilySearch) )>Huron >Marriage Records 1855-1866 vol 1 >image 277 of 306; citing Huron County.

Amos in Iowa?

January 23, 2020April 15, 2020 admin1 Comment

This is my sixth post in the Guild of One-Name Studies (GOONS) blog challenge 2020. The challenge is to post 10 blogs in the first 12 weeks of the year.

Amos Casbon is not a new character in my blog. He can be considered the patriarch of what may be the largest branch of Casbons living in America. He was the son of James and Mary (Jackson) Casbon and the brother (or half-brother?) of Margaret “Maggie” Casbon, about whom I wrote in the fourth post of the GOONS challenge. Amos was born 6 July 1869 at Cottenham, Cambridgeshire, England.^[1] He was only a toddler when his family emigrated to Porter County, Indiana, USA, in late 1870. He was probably only 4 or 5 years old when his mother died. His father remarried in 1876.^[2] James was murdered in an unprovoked attack in August 1884, when Amos was 15 years old.^[3]

After his father’s death, there is little solid information about Amos until his marriage to Carrie Belle Aylesworth in 1900. He was probably forced to grow up fast, without the support of a close loving family. Family tradition has it that Amos and his stepmother did not get along and that he was estranged from his sister Margaret, who seemed to have strayed from the “straight path.” He might have lived with and worked for local farmers. He was said to have lived for some time with his older cousin, Jesse Casbon, who also lived in Porter County. My impression is that this was an unsettled time in Amos’s life.

Portrait of a young Amos Casbon; undated, courtesy of Ron Casbon

We know that he worked as a grip for a Chicago streetcar company for four years in the late 1890s.^[4]

Amos’s entry in The Lakeside Annual Directory of the City of Chicago
(Chicago: The Chicago Directory Co., 1896), p. 391; Ancestry.com

In addition, a 25 January 1900 news announcement tells us that Amos, then living in Chicago, was job hunting in the Boone Grove (Porter County, Indiana) area.^[5]

Last May, when I spent time at the Valparaiso Public Library, I discovered that Amos had also spent some time in his late teens and perhaps early twenties living and working in Iowa. The discovery was made when I found this news item on microfilm.

Untitled Article, The Porter County Vidette, 11 July 1889

Why is this important? For one thing, it puts another data point on the timeline of Amos’s life, during a time about which we have little other information. The timeline is probably only important to me and to those descendants of Amos who share in interest in their family history (of whom there are several).

The second reason is that Amos’s presence in Iowa connects him to another branch of the family, specifically the branch living in Iowa that consisted Emma (Casbon) and Robert Rigg, and their nephew George Washington Casbon (see “Introducing the Iowa Casbons! Part 1”). Emma, although 22 years older, was Amos’s first cousin, the daughter of his uncle Thomas Casbon (1803–1888). George, who was five years younger than Amos, was his second cousin, the son of Emma’s brother Sylvester Casbon. Emma, Robert, and George lived on a farm in Tama County, Iowa, about six miles away from LaPorte City, where Amos was reported to be living in 1889.

It is unlikely to be a coincidence that that Amos was living and working so close to his Iowa relatives. It is a little surprising, though, since the Rigg family had moved to Iowa in 1876, when Amos was only 7 years old. Considering the difference in their ages, he was hardly old enough to have formed a close personal friendship with Emma, or with George, who was only 2 years old when he moved to Iowa.

We can infer from this that family ties between all the branches of the family—Amos, his stepmother and sisters, Emma’s family in Iowa, and her siblings in Indiana—were still very close. There had probably been occasional family visits between Iowa and Indiana, and letters were probably frequently exchanged. Even though Amos might not have had a close relationship to Emma and George, he was a member of the larger family. That bond was strong enough to bring him to Iowa as a young man.

Ties between the Iowa and Indiana Casbons remained strong for a generation or two. We know this from photographs and other items documenting visits between the Iowa and Indiana families. There is even a news item from 1931 reporting that Amos and his family had returned “from a trip to points in Iowa visiting friends and relatives.”^[6]

By my generation, the ties between the Iowa and Indiana clans were virtually forgotten. For that matter, the ties between my branch and the descendants of Amos were very weak. Even though their families continued to live in the same county in Indiana, I never met or knew any of these cousins until recent years. I don’t believe this was the result of any kind of hostility; it was just a natural process that happened as each generation grew in size and the degrees of separation increased. Thankfully, as a result of efforts by members of all three branches to reconnect with our common heritage, not to mention modern conveniences such as Facebook and email, we are communicating and sharing stories with each other again.

[1] England, birth registration (PDF copy) for Amos James Casburn, born 6 Jul 1869; registered September quarter 1869, Chesterton District 3b/452, Willingham Sub-district, no 45; General Registry Office, Southport.
[2] “Indiana Marriages, 1811-2007,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1410397 : accessed 24 October 2015) >Porter >1871-1875 Volume 4 > image 242 of 246; Indiana Commission on Public Records, Indianapolis.
[3] “Murder! That is About what is Made out of the Case of Old Man Casbon,” Porter County (Indiana) Vidette, 28 Aug 1884, p. 1, col. 2.
[4] “Boone Grove Couple Will Observe 50th Anniversary,” The (Valparaiso, Indiana) Vidette-Messenger, 21 Nov 1950, p. 1, col. 6.
[5] “Boone Grove Items,” The Porter County Vidette, 25 January 1900.
[6]“Aylesworth,” The Vidette-Messenger, 27 Nov 1931, p. 6, col. 1.

More About Maggie

January 13, 2020April 15, 2020 admin6 Comments

This is my fourth post in the Guild of One-Name Studies blog challenge 2020.

I have written two previous posts about Margaret—“Maggie”—Casbon (1864–1903), who was born out of wedlock as Margaret Jackson, the daughter of Mary Jackson (abt. 1833–abt. 1875). Mary Jackson married James Casbon (abt. 1813–1884) at Stretham, Cambridgeshire in 1866, when Maggie was two-and-a-half years old. James might have been Maggie’s father, but that is unknown. My first post about Maggie, written in December 2017, summarized everything I knew about her life at that time and the second post, from February 2019, presented her obituary. Today’s post is an update, with a correction and clarification about information I discussed in the 2017 post. It is also a cautionary tale about how incorrect conclusions can be drawn from derivative sources.

In my December 2017 post, I quoted the source “Genealogical Notes from the Porter Vidette, April 7, 1881 – Sept. 14, 1882,”^[1] This was a typewritten extract of items of interest printed in an early Porter County, Indiana, newspaper. The entry dated 9 February 1882 listed a few marriages and deaths and then this statement: “Maggie Casbum living with Ben Woodard.”

Excerpt from “Genealogical Notes from the Porter Vidette, April 7, 1881 – Sept. 14, 1882”

I interpreted the phrase “living with” from my modern perspective as meaning that Maggie was in a relationship, i.e., “living in sin” with Ben Woodard. This seemed like an odd thing to print in the newspaper, but then again, newspapers from that era tended to be more gossipy about local matters than they are today. I couldn’t view the microfilm of the original article at the time because it was at the Porter County Library, almost a thousand miles away from me. It wasn’t until early 2019 during a short visit to Indiana that I was able to view the microfilm. That was when I realized that my interpretation completely missed the mark. Here is the article.

Untitled article, The Porter County (Indiana) Vidette, 9 Feb 1882, p. 5, col. 1.

As you can clearly see, the phrase “living with” in the extract simply meant that Maggie had been living in the home of Ben Woodard and his family. There is no suggestion of an inappropriate relationship with Mr. Woodard. The article tells us that Maggie was suspected of stealing clothing from the Woodard family and was now missing. It also says that she has been suspected of similar activities in the past.

My mistake was that I had misinterpreted the limited information contained in the extract. This shows how a derivative source can sometimes lead us astray in our genealogical research. Elizabeth Shown Mills defines a derivative source as “material produced by copying an original or manipulating its content; e.g., abstracts, compilations, databases, extracts, transcripts, translations, and authored works such as historical monographs or family histories.”^[2] She goes on to say: “Derivative sources also span the entire spectrum of reliability—depending upon the form they take; the circumstances of their creation; and the skill, bias, or aim of their creators.”^[3] In this case, the extract failed to convey the true meaning of the original article.

This isn’t necessarily an error on the part of the librarian who prepared the extract, since she probably only intended to note the fact that both Maggie Casbon and Ben Woodard were mentioned in an article. The purpose of the “Genealogical Notes” is to save readers hours of time they would have spent scrolling through microfilm reels and reading the fine print of newspapers in search of their persons of interest. Instead, a library patron, upon reading the extract, would know which microfilm reel to pull and which newspaper edition contained the information they wished to find.

The “real” story about Maggie as told in the article fills in another blank in what we know about her and portrays her in a negative light. The article also raises new questions. It was written in 1882, when Maggie was 17 years old. This was two years before her father (or stepfather?), James, was murdered. Yet, she was said to claim that she was “an orphan, and destitute of a home.” Why would she make such a claim? We can only speculate, as there are several possible reasons: 1) After her mother’s death, perhaps she truly was an orphan (i.e., without a living parent) if James was not her biological father; 2) Perhaps for reasons unknown to us, she was estranged from James and her new stepmother and had been turned out of their home; 3) Perhaps she left her home of her own volition and was posing as an orphan in order to take advantage of the good will of others. We will probably never know the whole story.

One danger of genealogical research is the risk of drawing broad conclusions from limited information. It would be easy to dismiss Maggie as a “black sheep,” but this would be an oversimplification. I prefer to look at this episode in the context of what else is known about her.

Maggie did not have an easy life. Born out of wedlock, she was taken to a strange land (Indiana, USA) when she was only six years old. She lost her mother when she was probably no more than ten and then raised by a man who might not have been her biological father and a new stepmother. We know nothing about her home life in Indiana except that her father or stepfather was a poor laborer. This man (James Casbon) was murdered when she was 20 years old. Maggie had an unsuccessful marriage about seven months after the Vidette article was printed. Then there is a huge gap in information between 1882 and her second marriage in 1899. This marriage was ended four years later by her untimely death at the age of 39 due to uterine cancer. She never had children. The 1882 news article is the only piece of information portraying her in a negative light. It would be wrong to draw a general conclusion about her character based on this episode that took place in her teenage years.

Unless new information turns up, this is probably the last thing I’ll have to say about Maggie. Why do I write about her at all? Part of the reason is that I am especially interested in those family members who made the difficult journey to America in the mid- to late 1800s. Part of the reason is that there is no one else to tell her story, and I think it is worth telling. And finally, I have to admit that I have the genealogists’ disease of being unable to resist the desire to go down rabbit holes in search of just about anything.

^[1] Kaye Griffiths, compiler (typescript, 1983), no. G977.298; Genealogy Department, Porter County Public Library, Valparaiso.
^[2] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, 3d ed. (for Kindle) (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2015), p. 24.
^[3] Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, p. 24.

Writing the Book, Part Two

December 23, 2019April 15, 2020 admin1 Comment

In my previous post I explained the planned scope of my book and my intention to write it in Register style. Before I could start writing, I needed to compile and organize a great deal of information. Today’s post looks at the information that went into writing the book and how it was obtained.

My information requirements fell into three general categories:

Genealogical information (i.e., basic facts such as births, deaths, and marriages)
Additional biographical information
Background information—historical, geographic and other sources used to provide context

Genealogical Information. The first step in gathering the genealogical information was generating a list of the people who would be included in the book. I’ve already said that I wanted the genealogy to begin with Isaac Casbon and then trace the descendants of two of his sons, Thomas and James, up to the present time. Much of the information I needed was already contained in the genealogy software (FamilyTreeMaker®) that I have used for many years to save my research. The program allows me to generate custom reports, so I was able to produce a list of Isaac Casbon’s descendants along with their vital (i.e., birth, marriage, and death—”BMD”) information.

With this list I was able to identify gaps in the data, such as missing dates and places, that would require further research before I could start writing. This was a straightforward task. However, a bigger issue was the fact that my list was incomplete because it did not include most of the more recent—especially living—descendants. Many records, such as births and marriages within the last 50 to 100 years, are not public. Finding this information would require a different approach.

How do you find people when you don’t know who they are? The easiest approach was to ask other people who might have the answers. I’m fortunate to have distant cousins in different branches of the family who are willing to share their family information with me. They were kind enough to provide names and contact information for many of their relatives. Obituaries were another good source, since they usually listed surviving members of the decedent’s family. Facebook was another valuable resource. There is a Casbon Family Facebook group with about 150 members and a smaller Casbon Family History group with 84 members (most of them are also in the former group). These groups have provided a great way for distant cousins to meet and share stories and photos. They also provided a convenient way for me to tell people about the book and ask them for information about their families.

Between these sources I had the names of many living descendants. The list was still incomplete but it was good enough to move forward. The fact is, after nine generations, it is practically impossible to keep track of every descendant. In the book some family lines would just have to end with the last known person.

Although I now had names, I still needed contact information for many of the living people. This is where my old friend Google helped out. Anyone who has used Google to find people will know that it is a mixed blessing. A Google search brings up many websites with information derived from public records. The problem is that many of these records are not current. They frequently list multiple addresses and phone numbers for a given individual. It was a lot easier when everyone had landlines and you could just call directory assistance. At any rate, I ended up with preliminary contact information for most of the people on my list.

The next step was to contact as many living descendants as possible, ask them for information about themselves and their immediate families, and obtain permission to publish their information in the book.

This latter point—permission—is very important. Not everyone shares my enthusiasm for family history and some might take offense at finding their names and other personal information in print. In these days of robocalls, identify theft, and laws directed at privacy protection, it is imperative to respect these concerns and to seek permission before printing personal information. Based on suggestions made by genealogist and lawyer Judy Russell in her blog, The Legal Genealogist (“Getting Permission,” 20 March 2013) I crafted a form for people to complete, giving me permission to print their information and allowing them to opt out of certain types of information.

An excerpt from the permission form I sent out; the form also explained the purpose of the book,
asked for contact information, and gave options for keeping information private

I announced my intention to write the book on Facebook and by email. If the only contact information I had was a phone number or mailing address, I called them up or wrote a letter. Along with the permission form, I sent, via Facebook Messenger, email, or regular mail, a form that allowed individuals to list vital information about themselves and their immediate families.

A portion of the family unit chart; note that it allows for information about three generations:
parents of husband/wife; husband/wife; children; it also allows for previous marriages

I started contacting people in February 2019. Responses did not immediately begin to roll in—it was more like a slow trickle. I found that it was necessary to send follow-up emails and to make multiple pleas on Facebook. One approach that seemed to work was to publicly thank people on Facebook when they returned their completed forms to me. This served as a reminder to those who had not yet responded. I eventually set a deadline of 31 May 2019 to return the forms to me, so that I could proceed with writing and setting the information into Register style. Even so, a few people continued to contact me well into the summer and I accommodated them.

Most people were happy to share complete details such as birth dates and locations. Many requested limitations of one kind or another, such as using birth year only, omitting locations, or not mentioning previous marriages. A very small number of people said they did not want to be included in the book. Many of the completed forms identified additional people to contact, such as adult children with families of their own. I was happy to get their names, but this required me to sent out more forms.

Eventually I received roughly 70 completed forms. Several additional people gave me permission by email. In all, I had about 560 names and 164 family groups to include in the book. The added benefit of contacting everyone was that I now had a ready list of people who would be interested in buying the finished book!

Additional Biographical Information. There were several potential sources of this information. Newspaper archives—either online or microfilm— were probably the most important. Newspaper articles often helped to fill in gaps in timelines or identify significant family events (a barn burning, an airplane crash, and a traumatic amputation are just a few examples). Obituaries were especially helpful because they often included short biographies of the deceased. Local county histories, popular in the early 1900s, contained biographical sketches with interesting tidbits of information. Censuses were also helpful because they identified where people lived and how they were employed. Property records showed when people moved from one location to another.

Background Information. I wanted the book to include more than just genealogical and biographical information. It was important to describe the world my ancestors lived in and the circumstances that shaped their lives. A lot of good information was available online, but traditional books were needed for many subjects. My local libraries don’t have carry much about the history and geography of Cambridgeshire. Thank goodness for interlibrary loan! I also found books that described social conditions in 18^th and 19^th century England. Other sources described the expansion of railroads in England and the United States, information about immigrant ships, and transportation along the St. Lawrence River. A military unit history helped me to create a timeline for one relative’s movements during and after the American Civil War. All these sources helped to “set the scene” for what was going on in people’s lives.

Other than the family information forms, most of my background research was completed by about April 2019. I was ready to begin the next phase—writing the book.