John Wishart - Aged 75? …..

scooter · Post by **scooter** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:08 am

Hello,

I've found an image for a John Wishart in the 1841 census. The SP index has him down as aged 75, however I'm wondering if 15 is more likely?

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1193

Any thoughts?

Best,

Scott

Post by **emanday** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:23 am

I'm inclined to go with 75, but Ancestry has him as 15...

1841 Scotland Census
about John Wishart
Name: John Wishart
Age: 15
Estimated birth year: abt 1826
Household: View other family members
Gender: Male
Where born: Angus, Scotland
Civil parish: Dundee
County: Angus
Address: Overgate
Parish Number: 282
ED: 103

Post by **Anne H** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:51 pm

Hi Scott,

I'd be inclined to go with age 15...I think the mark before the "1" is one of many dots on the page. It also quite fits in line with the other ages of the Wishart's, i.e. 18, 15, 12.

Regards,
Anne H

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:08 pm

Hi Scott

I totally agree with what Anne wrote.

Note too there is a 70 year old in the household above....that seven is neatly made....the 15 or 75 would be a much larger seven if the dot was connected.

I'd contact GROS and ask them to consult the original record and see if they agree.

Best wishes
Jean

Post by **emanday** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Anne H wrote:Hi Scott,

I'd be inclined to go with age 15...I think the mark before the "1" is one of many dots on the page. It also quite fits in line with the other ages of the Wishart's, i.e. 18, 15, 12.

Regards,
Anne H

I see where your going with that Anne. He has kept all ages running in sequence per surname. I had tossed up between the fact that all his 7's and 1's apart from that seemed very clear. Maybe it was just a wee slip of the pen.

Post by **paddyscar** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:16 pm

Hi Scott:

Sometimes a negative image makes things clearer, so I've uploaded one to the gallery.
http://www.talkingscot.com/gallery/albu ... gative.doc

Hope it helps,

Frances

scooter · Post by **scooter** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:08 am

Thanks everyone for your input, I've gone back and forth between 75 and 15. The latter makes more sense, but having seen Francis' negative image, I'm not so sure again! Perhaps that is just a blob of ink :)

Sorry to be a bother again, but I think I've found another family listed as Wishart on SP, but looking somewhat different to my eyes. It's the family on the right hand page started with John (57) and Lilly (41). The surname looks like ??sham, any ideas?

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1199

Best,

Scott

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:15 am

I would agree with Anne that it is 15, I have looked at the image a couple of times and it always looks like 15 to me.

In all the census images I have found so far the ages in families have been in sequential order. Only when another couple in a household are listed do the age sequence orders change.

Post by **paddyscar** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:35 am

Scooter wrote:Thanks everyone for your input, I've gone back and forth between 75 and 15. The latter makes more sense, but having seen Francis' negative image, I'm not so sure again! Perhaps that is just a blob of ink

When I looked at the black script on the white background, I felt that my mind's eye was filling in the space between the squiggle and the downward stroke, creating a 7; similar as to what happens when viewing animated film.

When I reversed the image to white on black, I saw the squiggle as separate and unconnected to the downward stroke, so 15 (in birth order) gets my vote. Notice that the census taker enters this number further away from the left column line than the other ages in that same column. Is it to avoid a paper flaw?

Scooter wrote:Sorry to be a bother again, but I think I've found another family listed as Wishart on SP, but looking somewhat different to my eyes. It's the family on the right hand page started with John (57) and Lilly (41). The surname looks like ??sham, any ideas?

I think the surname is Tristram.

Frances

Post by **Anne H** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:24 am

Hi Scott,

At first glance I thought it was Wishart but when I magnified it, it looked more like Trishart…the letter “T” looking very much like the “T” in Tin Smith a few lines up.

It could also be Trisham or Tresham…but only one OPR marriage in 1815 on SP for a Tresham and nothing for Trisham.

It could be Tristram as mentioned by Frances, although the letter “t” in most instances on the page doesn’t have such a long line across it and nothing comes on the free search for Tristram on SP.

Ancestry has it as Liestean but I don’t think that’s what it is.

Lots of "could be's" ...sorry

Regards,
Anne H