Sunday, February 2, 2014

A Dunfee Duo

Last December I wrote several posts regarding Aquilla and Eliza (Dunfee) Hoff and their son. In this post, I discussed the possibility that their son Jonathan H. Hoff (last found with his father in Drum Creek Township, Montgomery County, Kansas in 1880) and John Hazlett Hoff (found in Decatur County, Kansas in 1900 & 1910 and Lawrence, Douglas County in 1915, 1920, 1925, and 1930) were the same person.



Shortly after those posts were published, I contacted Cathy, the submitter of one of the most "promising" ancestry trees. We corresponded briefly at the end of December but came to no firm conclusions. In April, she ordered the marriage record for John H. Hoff that "Charlie" a kinexxions reader had located in an online index. It confirmed the names of his parents listed in the index, but didn't really bring us any closer to a conclusion.







Decatur County, Kansas Marriage Application dated March 15, 1892. Parents of Jno. H. Hoff are given as Olen Hoff and Eliza Durfee.



Part of the "issue" is that John H. Hoff is consistently 5 years younger than Jonathan H. Hoff. And there is the family tradition that John was "the only child of along-toward-middle aged parents, had a father 'mostly' German born in the United States. His mother, Irish, was born in Ireland and came to the U.S. in her seventeenth year" and John's parents reportedly died during his "early teen years" and he then went to live with an uncle.



Aquilla Hoff and Eliza Dunfee were married on September 4, 1851 in Ashland County, Ohio. He was 36 years old and she was 38. In the 1860 census, Jonathan is 6 years old. In 1870, he is 16 and in 1880 he is 26 years old - all consistent with an 1854 year of birth. So, yes, he would have been born to "late in life" parents with Aquilla being about 40 and Eliza being 42 years old. And he was an only child.



On his marriage application of March 15, 1892, Jno. H. Hoff gives his age as 33. In the 1900 census, John is listed as born in Nov 1859. In 1910 he is 51 years old. In 1915 he is 55. In 1920 he is 60. In 1925 he is 65. And in 1930 he is 70 years old. All consistent with a birth year of 1859-1860.



According to census records, Aquilla was born in Maryland and Eliza was born in Pennsylvania. My mother and grandmother always said the Dunfees were Scotch-Irish so maybe the "Irish" part in the John Hoff family tradition has some semblance of truth to it. But Eliza was not the immigrant - her parents were both born in Pennsylvania also.



Eliza died on August 6, 1876 probably in Lagrange County, Indiana. She is buried in Greenwood Cemetery in Lagrange County. At that time, Jonathan would have been about 22 years old (i.e. not in his early teens). Aquilla died June 27, 1883 also in Lagrange County. Jonathan would have been about 29 years old. Even subtracting the five years "lost" when given the age of John H. Hoff, it means he would have been 17 and 24 years old when Eliza and Aquilla died.



Of course, I have a theory regarding the age difference between John H. Hoff and Jonathan H. Hoff, assuming that they are indeed the same person. Did vanity enter into the equation? Perhaps John "shaved" 5 years off of his age so that he would not be so much older than his wife Mary who was born in January 1868. Using their ages, she would have been about 14 years younger than Jonathan and about 9 years younger than John.



One idea that Cathy proposed was that maybe Aquilla was John's uncle and that John was adopted by Aquilla and Eliza. But if that is true, he would have been adopted as a much younger child, not one in his young teen years. And there were no other known children for Aquilla and Eliza, especially older children.



So we're back to square one, not knowing with any degree of certainty whether John is Jonathan.



But, entering into the picture is contact with another Dunfee descendant, this one through a brother of Eliza. No, Roger didn't add anything to the information we have, but he did have a photo that really got my attention when I saw it. Roger's ancestor is Jonathan Smith Dunfee who is a brother to Eliza and to my 3rd great-grandfather, William Hamilton Dunfee.



You see, Cathy has a photograph of her great-grandfather John Hazlett Hoff. And Roger has a photo of his great-great-grandfather Jonathan Smith Dunfee. And they both gave me permission to use those photos here on kinexxions.



When I first saw the photo of Jonathan S. Dunfee it immediately called to mind the one of John H. Hoff. I kept clicking between the two and finally got them displayed side by side as shown in the composite below. The resemblance is striking. At least it is to me.







On the left is John Hazlett Hoff and on the right is Jonathan Smith Dunfee. Possibly nephew and uncle. Photos used courtesy of Cathy Hansen and Roger Waller.



But a really neat thing that I was able to do, with Roger's permission, was to give a print of the picture of Jonathan Smith Dunfee to one of his great-grandsons that lives here in Columbia City. Cal is my 3rd cousin twice removed and I've known him for a very long time. Mom and her siblings "always" knew their Dunfee cousins, which I think is pretty cool. I spent yesterday afternoon with Cal and his wife, Ardilla, talking about the Dunfee family, genealogy and numerous other topics. We had a wonderful visit! (As a side note, Ardilla is a grand-aunt of my brother's two oldest boys. Their grandfather is Ardilla's brother.)



A hearty "Thank You" goes out to Cathy and Roger for willingly sharing their research and their wonderful family photographs.



I must say, these last few months have been absolutely fantastic for me in terms of genealogy and family history research! It's been amazing and I can't wait to see what comes along next!



For more information on the Dunfee family, see theIndex to Posts, which is a compilation of all the posts that have been published here at kinexxions on the family.



Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Cycling and the Beach

If you live in a beach town, it is easy to hop on a cruiser and pedal to the shore, have a swim, more or less dry off, and pedal home. But what about incorporating the beach into long, strenuous and hilly touring style-rides? This has been our dilemma when taking trips to Maine this summer. In the absence of folding bikes (and frankly, I don't think folding bikes would be appropriate for the terrain here), we strap our roadbikes to the car, and get around entirely by bike once we arrive to our "base" location. In rural Maine, everything is far away from everything else - at least by Boston standards - and it is normal for us to cycle 5-10 hilly miles from one destination to another, multiple times in a day. We often pass our favourite beach in the area, but swimming can seem like such a project when your bicycle bags are already stuffed with photo equipment and other things, and the beach has no changing rooms.

Plus, when a 10 mile ride with plenty of uphill lies between the beach and the nearest town where you could freshen up, believe me that you don't want any sand to be stuck in your body's crevices, and neither do you want to pedal in a bathing suit. The Co-Habitant has tried wearing his swim trunks on the bike, and regretted it.

So here is my solution: I bring a bathing suit and a thin Pashmina or wrap instead of a towel. These take up almost no extra space in my saddle bag. Once at the beach, I remove my shoes and socks, wrap myself in the pashmina, and change into my bathing suit underneath it. If you don't have a pashmina or wrap, a long oversized t-shirt can work as a "changing tent" as well. After swimming, I "air dry" while either walking around or sitting on rocks (rather than sitting on sand); then I reverse the "changing tent" process. After this, the bathing suit can be wrung out, placed on a rock to dry off a bit, then placed in a plastic bag and packed away into the saddle bag together with the pashmina. After de-sanding my feet and putting my socks and shoes back on, I am ready to keep cycling. All this is a surprisingly low-hassle process.

Of course, one thing to make sure of before you stop at a beach like this, is that your water bottles are full. Also, never try to prop up your bike on the sand using a kickstand; carefully lay it down instead (drivetrain side up). Even if it seems as if the bike is stable on the kickstand, the sand's consistency changes with the wind and the tide, and the bike can easily fall. Oh, and if you go swimming, leave your bike as far from the water as possible - the tide can come in faster than you think!



Swimming in the ocean and cycling are two of my favourite activities, and it feels wonderful to combine them. Interestingly, the ocean water seems to be a great complement to high-intensity cycling - relaxing the muscles and giving me extra energy to go on. Anybody else have this experience?

More Blackberries


After breakfast we decided to take a walk around the large yard that Paddy calls home. It was so pretty and green and there was one of northwestern Oregon's light, misty rains sprinkling on us. But that didn't stop us from exploring the huge blackberry patch to find the fruit that Jim had missed earlier. For once I had my fill of fresh blackberries.
Of course you have to fight the birds and deer for them. But that is part of the fun.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Switzer Family Number 1 :: Jacob and Elizabeth and the Sale of their Land

This previous post was a summary of the Tax Lists, Land Records, and Census Records for each of the Jacob Switzers living in Columbiana County, Ohio and in that post this Jacob was identified as Jacob #1. This Jacob Switzer was born February 28, 1761 and died October 27, 1841. His wife was named Elizabeth (maiden name possibly Hoke and possibly married February 19, 1786).



From 1816-1831 Jacob Switzer was taxed on 156 acres in the NE ¼ R3 T15 S25 (Salem Twp). Patent Certificate 883 was issued to Jacob Switzer of Jefferson County, Ohio for this land in 1804. The final certificate number 1976 was issued in 1808. In 1832 this land was sold by Jacob and Elizabeth to Daniel Switzer.





Columbiana County, Ohio Deeds Volume 15, bottom of page 389 (FHL Film 926868)

Pages 389 and 390 contain the standard legalese associated with land transactions.

“This indenture made this twentieth day of January AD One Thousand eight hundred and thirty two, by and between Jacob Switzer and Elizabeth his wife of the county of Columbiana in the state of Ohio of the one part, and Daniel Switzer... for and in consideration of the sum of Fifteen hundred dollars... do convey unto the said Daniel Switzer... all that tract or parcel of land... in the North East quarter of Section No twenty five Township No fifteen and range No three of the Steubenville land District... containing one hundred and fifty six acres and Seventy Seven hundredths... which quarter Section of land was granted to the said Jacob Switzer by Patent From under the hand and seal of Thomas Jefferson while he was President of the United States..."
Jacob and Elizabeth both made their marks. The deed was recorded on the 13th day of February 1832.





Columbiana County, Ohio Deeds Volume 15, page 390 (FHL Film 926868)

The interesting part of these documents begins at the bottom of page 390 and continues on to page 391 and is a Mortgage made by Daniel Switzer to Jacob Switzer.



This Indenture made this twenty first day of January AD one Thousand eight hundred and thirty Two, between Daniel Switzer & Elisabeth his wife... and Jacob Switzer of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Daniel Switzer and Elisabeth his Wife for and in consideration of the sum of Six hundred dollars to them in hand paid by the said Jacob Switzer... do confirm unto the said Jacob Switzer... all that tract or parcel of land... being the North east quarter of Section No twenty five Township No fifteen, and range No Three... containing one hundred and fifty six acres more or less...

Provided always, and these presents are upon This express condition, that if the said Daniel Switzer, his heirs executors or administrators shall pay or cause to be be paid unto the said Jacob Switzer or assigns, yearly and every year for and during his natural life on or before the first day of April annually commencing in 1833 twenty five Bushels of wheat, fifty bushels of corn, fifty bushels of oats and six bushels of buckwheat, and also to furnish and provide yearly and every year during his natural life, hay and stable rom for one horse and a Cow, during the winter season, and pasture during the remainder of the year, keep four head of Sheep for said Jacob Switzer. Furnish him a Sufficient quantity of firewood ready for use at His house. let him have the entire use of the mansion house he Now lives in – room in the Springhouse as usual – as much fruit as he and his wife shall want for their own use a truck patch Before his door and as much room as usual in the garden. That then and from Henceforth these presents and every thing Herein contained shall cease and be void, anything herein Contained, to the contrary not withstanding. In Testimony whereof the said Daniel Switzer and Elisabeth his wife have hereunto set their hands and seals, day and year first above written.
Daniel Switzer signed his name and his wife Elisabeth made her mark. The mortgage was received for record and recorded on the 13th day of February 1832.





Columbiana County, Ohio Deeds Volume 15, page 391 (FHL Film 926868)



Columbiana County, Ohio Deeds Volume 15, top of page 392 (FHL Film 926868)

Friday, January 24, 2014

Velophilia and Its Symptoms (and Announcing Dress Guards Recipient!)

Several days ago I offered togive away a set of dress guards, and the rule was for bicycles (not their owners) to post comments about why they would like them. I expected a dozen or so comments from bicycles, but receivedclose to 40... which made me realise that I am by far not the only one to anthropomorphise my bicycles to a point that borders on delusion. And the good news, is that when 40 people share the same delusion, that's called sanity!



[image via Laura B.]

Without further ado, I now announce whom my bicycle Linda has chosen as the recipient of the dress guards: a 1950's step-through Dutch bike named Fanny (pictured above). Here is Fanny's comment:

I'm a Dutch lady, from the mysterious Fanal family, born in the 1950s. I have naked holes running along both sides of my back fender. After reading your post about dress guards, I realized how un-lady-like it has been to leave these dress guard anchors exposed.
I have recently been working on my appearance--rust removal, new pedals, touch-up painting, pin-striping with a gold paint pen, re-shellacking my grips, etc. It would be so nice to show up at the farmer's market this weekend with a lovely dress guard. The lilac branches in my photo (link below) might have appreciated the guard, too.
Love,
Fanny, the Fanal
A vintage Dutch bicycle who lives in exile in the US, loves lilacs and has gaping holes in her fender? Linda dabbed at her eyes with an embroidered hanky as she read Fanny's story, and would like her to have the dress guards. If Fanny's human companion Laura B. could please send me her mailing address, the dress guards shall be on their way to her shortly! And thank you everybody for all the bicycle comments on that post; they were hilarious and a lot of fun to read!



Speaking of acute symptoms of Velophilia, I knitted this skirt while convalescing from my hopefully-not-pneumonia. The design is bicycle friendly:It looks like a narrow pencil skirt from the front, but the pointed end in the back allows it to open up while pedaling. I think cycling exclusively on a road bike for the past several weeks has made me crazed with desire to ride an upright bicycle in a skirt again.



And once the skirt was completed, I also realised that my choice of yarn looked a little familiar...



Ah yes, my mixte!My Velophilia is at its most acute when something prevents me from cycling as much as I'd like. Everything I do ends up being about bicycles.I look forward to returning to Boston later this weekend, hopefully entirely recovered.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

The Estate of John Rupert :: Goods and Chattels

The will of John Rupert dated October 17, 1828 was admitted to probate in Columbiana County, Ohio in August of 1831. The appraisers were appointed on September 3, 1831 and an inventory was submitted to the executors on that date. These documents are of importance because they place John Rupert in Hanover township. I'm not sure that this is a complete inventory, because the sale bill seems to have more items. It is possible that some pages were missing when the estate papers were microfilmed.





Appointment of Administrators of the estate of John Rupart. Packet 1439. Family History Library microfilm 2032592.

State of Ohio

Columbiana County



Before me Michael Arter a Justice of the peace in and for said county personally came Philip Andrew Peter Guisinger David Wiley appraisers of the estate of John Rupert late of Hanover Township in said county deceased and were sworn well and truly to apprais all the goods and Chattles of said estate which shall be presented to them for appraisement, and also to set off to the widow of said deceased such possessions or other property as they shall think reasonable for the support of herself and children twelve months from the time of the death of the said deceased.



Given under my hand this 3d day of September 1831

Michael Arter Justice of the peace





Inventory of the estate of John Rupart. Packet 1439.

“A true and accurate inventory of the goods and chattels of the estate of John Rupert late of Hanover township, deceased presented to us the undersigned appraisers of said estate, by Conrad Yarien & David Ehrhart, executors thereof, the 3d day of September 1831.”






one man's saddle - - 1.00

one wheel & Reel - - 2.50

one churn - - 1.00

one shovel, axe, &c. - - 2.00

one [?] kettle [?] - - 1.50

a lot of chissels - - 0.25

a lot of Iron, &c. - - 0.75

one hammer, anvil, &c. - - 0.50

one Kettle - - 1.50

one Scythe - - 0.37 ½

one Salt barrel - - 1.25

a lot of tubs and barrels - - 1.50

a lot of Tubs - - 0.75

a lot of Cradles [?] - - 0.75

A lot of Tubs - - 0.12 ½

A lot of Corn - - 0.25

One heiffer - - 6.00

one windmill - - 5.00

one dunghook & pitchfork - - 0.37

one Salt barrel - - 0.12 ½

A lot of wheat – 10.00

a lot of rye - - 3.25

A lot of oats – - 2.25

A quantity of Hay - - 4.00

Shovel & tongs - - 0.50

Two pot racks - - 1.50

one clock - - 2.50

one Cooking glass - - 0.50

a pair of Cards [?] - - 0.25

one chest - - 1.00

one table - - 1.00

a pair of irons - - 0.50

one bed - - 4.00
Dresser ware - - 4.00

one iron pot, $c. - - 2.50

Pewter ware - - 3.00

4 Chairs - - 0.50

one Cow bell - - 0.75

A quantity of Rye - - 2.50

a tub of wheat - - 2.00

2 barrels - - 0.25

7 bags - - 2.00

Corn in the ground - - 5.00

Cow Chains - - 1.00

Half bushel, &c &c - - 1.37 ½

A ½ pair of Steelyards - - 0.75

one griddle - - 1.00

one adze and basket - - 0.50

one spinning wheel - - 1.00

one trunk - - 0.16 ¼

one Rig [?] - - 0.50

one hackle - - 1.00

Cash on hand - - 12.12 ½













Philip Andrew

David Wiley

Peter Guisinger