Indirect Evidence Information is Inadequate?

 The inside front cover of Evidence Explained contains a nice one-page graphic on "evidence analysis." 

It refers to "indirect" evidence as "relevant-inadequate."

A too quick reading may leave one wondering "what?" How can something be relevant and inadequate at the same time? 

It can and it's an excellent situation where reading the entire book and remembering that graphics and charts are often used to provide quick visual summaries of the actual text is important. Charts are meant to jog the mind not replace it.

Indirect evidence is evidence that cannot answer a question all by itself. Indirect evidence can, with other indirect evidence and careful analysis and reasoning, answer a question. 

Indirect evidence just needs help. It needs more indirect evidence and a scaffold of support. 

That's why one piece of information which is labeled indirect evidence is called inadequate in the graphic on the inside front cover. 

That one piece isn't adequate by itself. 

Just like one brick isn't adequate to build an entire building.

There need to be other bricks (more indirect evidence) and mortar (arguments and analysis) in order to complete the building process.

I don't think Mills uses the building metaphor, but it works for me. 

And I'll avoid any references to mills being built of bricks and mortar. 

----------------------------------------

Note: We're not reproducing the chart here because it's a violation of copyright law do so without being asked and because that's just the way we do things here. 

Why Could the Sheriff Not Find Great-Grandma Fannie Neill in 1908? Part 5-Wrap-up

On 10 February 1908, the Hancock County Sheriff said that my great-grandmother "could not be found in Hancock County, Illinois" and left a summons with her husband, Charles. This post concludes the series on where I think Fannie was in 1908.

While it is possible that she was out of the area (perhaps visiting a pregnant sister), I'm inclined not to think so based upon the following reasons:

• The Neills had two small children of their own in February of 1908; Cecil and Ralph, both under the age of five. It seems unlikely that Fannie would leave Charlie alone with the children.
• The Neills were tenants on the Rampley farm that was the subject of the partition suit filed in 1907 and, if they couldn't purchase it, would be forced to move. It's doubtful the young couple would have been able to purchase the 205 acre piece of property. 
• William Rampley (one of the plaintiffs in the 1907 partition suit) obtained a separate judgment while the partition suite was in process from a Justice of the Peace against Fannie Neill totalling $186.98. This amount was garnished from her interest in the Rampley farm. It's possible that this case was already "brewing" in February of 1908.

It seems very reasonable that, given the situation, when the sheriff came to the door Fannie either refused to answer or Charles told her not to. You can't force someone to answer the door and the legal matters involved are not criminal in nature--she wasn't avoiding arrest. It isn't very difficult to imagine, given the situation, that she simply didn't come to the door. 

If the only information I had was the fact that Fannie "couldn't be found," I wouldn't be so quick to draw this conclusion. But given the items in the second and third bullets, it seems reasonable that Fannie was in Hancock County in 1908. 

Moin and What's Low-German?

Moin!

In a recent post about relatives who might have been in the DAR, I used the phrase "low-German peasants."

The use of the word "peasants" was simply done to indicate that the ancestors of the women mention in the post were of the lower and sometimes middle economic classes. They weren't "high-powered" individuals. Low-German actually refers to a language family that is spoken in the north of Germany and in parts of the Netherlands. It's typically called low-German because it's spoken in the low-lying areas of Germany near the North Sea.

My maternal German ancestors were all from Ostfriesland--which is in extreme western modern-day Germany near the Dutch border. The immigrants from this area all spoke low-German (also referred to as Platt or Plattdeutsch), but some did speak or could read the more formal High German language as that was the language generally used in books and legal documents. My grandfather could speak some Platt which he learned from his parents.

"Moin" is a Frisian greeting--one which my maternal ancestors used.

Quarters and Quarter Sections in a 1929-Era Probate

I've always found land descriptions and land records fascinating. Maybe it's just the math geek, farm kid, and genealogy nut coming out in me, but they are fun nonetheless.

The image with this post comes from the estate inventory of John J. Johnson. John's estate was probated in Hancock County, Illinois, from 1929 through the early 1930s. 

The real inventory is typical of those in the location during this time period. The "understood" acreages are never listed. Those are the ones shown in green and blue in the image that accompanies this post. 

A theoretical section of property is 640 acres. A quarter section would be 160 acres. As a result, the property shown in green in the illustration would have been 80 acres (half of a quarter section). The property in blue would have been 40 acres (a half of half of quarter section would be one quarter of a quarter section's 160 acres). 

And the last 38 acres? It's spelled out a little more specifically because it can't be described using halves and quarters. The land description system in Federal Land States is big on halves and quarters. Other, non-standard sized properties, are usually described more explicitly---often more explicitly than is shown here.

The estate settlement for John J. Johnson does not mention what happened to his real estate. I will have to look in the land records for those transactions. John J. Johnson will not be the grantor on those deeds--likely his administrators (and sons-in-law), Fred Ufkes and William Tammen will be. The probate records do not mention anywhere that Ufkes and Tammen are sons-in-law of Johnson.

And while I'm at it, I should be looking for the deeds where Johnson obtained the three parcels he owned upon his death.

Was Great-Great-Grandma In the DAR?

Yesterday's Genealogy Tip of the Day was about membership records of the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) and was quickly titled "Was Great-Great-Grandma in the DAR?" The discussion of the Tip on Facebook got me to thinking about whether my great-great-grandmothers would have qualified for the DAR. None were actually members.

One of my great-great-grandmothers could have qualified for DAR membership. One may qualify--her lineage hasn't completely been traced to the American Revolution era. The other six have no Colonial American ancestry--either being of Irish, German, or Ostfriesian stock.

My Great-Great-Grandmothers

• Annie (Murphy) Neill (Ireland-died 1897 St. Albans Township, Hancock County, Illinois). 
• No to potential DAR membership--descendant of generations of Irish peasants.
• Nancy Jane (Newman) Rampley (1846 Milroy, Rush County, Indiana-1923 West Point, Hancock County, Illinois). 
• Yes to potential DAR membership--two of her Amherst County, Virginia, ancestors are qualifying DAR ancestors.
• Franciska (Bieger) Trautvetter (1851 Warsaw, Hancock County, Illinois-1888 Walker Township, Hancock County, Illinois). 
• No to potential DAR membership--her parents were both German natives.
• Florence Ellen (Butler) Sargent (about 1855 [probably Missouri or Iowa--who knows?] - died after 1880)
• Heaven only knows at this point. One of her early 19th century New York State ancestors may have come from a Revolutionary War family.
• Noentje Lena (Grass) Ufkes (1848 Backemoor, Ostfriesland, Germany-1902 Bear Creek Township, Hancock County, Illinois). 
• No to potential DAR membership. Descendant of generations of low-German peasants.
• Fredericka Marie (Sartorius) Janssen (1865 Adams County, Illinois-1913 Bear Creek Township, Hancock County, Illinois). 
• No to potential DAR membership. Descendant of generations of low-German peasants (her parents were immigrants).
• Anke Hinrichs (Fecht) Habben (1860 Wiesens, Ostfriesland, Germany-1941 Elvaston, Hancock County, Illinois). 
• No to potential DAR membership. Descendant of generations of low-German peasants.
• Anna Margaret (Dirks) Goldenstein (1861 Honey Creek Township, Adams County, Illinois-1932 Golden, Adams County, Illinois).
• No to potential DAR membership. Descendant of generations of low-German peasants (her parents were immigrants).

No Resolutions for 2015--Instead Some Suggestions

I'm not big on resolutions so I won't make them. Instead we'll take a different approach to the new year.

Here are some research suggestions to remember in 2015:

• Use contemporary [to the problem] maps
• Cite sources
• Avoid using record transcriptions
• Determine a record's likely informant
• Question the reliability of the likely informant
• Ask "how did this record get to me from its original location?"
• Question (respectfully) the conclusions of others
• List the assumptions that have been made
• Reorganize the information in a different way?
• Do other record sources have copies of the same record?

Not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination, but certain to keep most of us thinking in 2015!

Need or Want Back Issues of Casefile Clues?

Quite a few Rootdig followers are Casefile Clues subscribers, so here's a brief announcement.

I've streamlined the order and download process for back issues of Casefile Clues. If you'd like to order back issues, please visit this page to do so. Download is immediate and you get the entire set at once. No longer do you have to wait for me to send you back issues.

If you have questions or are missing back issues, please let me know. You can learn more about Casefile Clues here--and you can join our subscriber family as well.

Thanks!

Why Could the Sheriff Not Find Great-Grandma Fannie Neill in 1908? Part 4

The problem with court records is that while they provide significant detail into our relatives' lives, they often leave out details.

We've seen that Fannie Neill "couldn't be found" when the Hancock County Sheriff came knocking in 1908 to give notice that the farm she was renting from her father's estate was subject to a partition suit filed by her mother and brother William.

The partition suit apparently wasn't the only legal action William took against Fannie.

The final account in the partition suit references a judgment against Fannie Neill by her brother William for $180.68 that was obtained before Squire Martin. The reference to the judgement does mention what the judgment resulted from, but it could very well have had to do with the farm that the Neills were renting--perhaps for grain, supplies, or other expenses

Apparently when he issued the judgment, Squire Martin attached it to the Neill's interest in the farm of Riley Rampley and the amount was taken from Fannie Neill's amount when the partition suit among the heirs of Riley Rampley was settled.

In this era, cases for small amounts of money could be heard in front of a justice of the peace instead of the county court. That seems to be what happened here.  Where those records are is another matter entirely. How necessary they are to my research is also another matter. I'm not certain it's worth my time to search them out.

There may have been a little more going on here than simply the partition suit. Without seeing the records, it's difficult to speculate about William Rampley's claim against the Neills. It's also possible that they simply decided to let the amount come out of their inheritance--which apparently it did.

Stay tuned for a wrap up post.

FamilySearch Update: Delaware Marriages 1713-1894

The following database is showing as updated since our last posting:

Delaware, Marriages and Marriage Licenses, 1713-1894

April 2015 Presentations in Columbus, Ohio

I'll be giving three lectures at the upcoming Ohio Genealogical Society Conference in April 2015 in Columbus, Ohio.

• Organizing Online Searches
• Seeing Patterns: Organizing Your Data
• The "Missing" 1840 Census

If you're a reader and attend the conference, please come up and introduce yourself after one of the presentations. If you'd like me to present to your group, please email me for additional information at mjnrootdig@gmail.com.

Hope to see you in Ohio!

Absence Makes the Genealogical Mind Wonder

The problem with reading things quickly is that valuable clues tend to be glossed over.

We've discussed the partition suit among Riley Rampley's heirs before, but a closer reading of the list of parties involved indicated that one of Riley's children was missing: Martha (Rampley) Gillham.

The question is why?

Thinking she was simply left out is not a valid conclusion. Court cases involving property rights need to involve all the interested heirs. Even if she were intentionally left out (extremely doubtful), it's unlikely that one of her siblings wouldn't mention the case to her and, given that notice later appeared in the newspaper and publicly via sale bills for the resulting auction, it's unlikely a neighbor wouldn't mention it to her.

If Martha were deceased at the time of the court action and left no heirs of her own, she wouldn't have to have been listed. That's not the case either--Martha was living at the time of the court case and had children of her own.

So why?

It's actually pretty simple, but like many things, requires a reading of all the relevant papers in the case.

The Gillhams had sole their interest in the Rampley estate to her brother, William Rampley.

The Original Bill, filed in December of 1907, references the sale from Gillham to William Rampley and also provides the deed volume and page number in the Hancock County Recorder's Office where the deed of sale was recorded.

The reason Gillham didn't have to be a part of the suit was that she had transferred her rights in the estate to her brother. She was not overlooked.

Two of Riley Rampley's children borrowed against their share in the estate--with their mother's knowledge and consent. Gillham is known to have left Hancock County, Illinois. It's possible that instead of mortgaging her interest to raise money, she simply sold it.

It's always worth determining why someone isn't listed where they are supposed to be.

There's usually a reason.

Sometimes that reason is made explicit--as it is here.
Sometimes that reason is buried under indirect references.

Regardless of how easy the reason is to uncover, genealogical absence should make the researcher wonder.

Why Could the Sheriff Not Find Great-Grandma Fannie Neill in 1908? Part 3

It struck me as odd that great-grandma Neill could not be found by the Hancock County Sheriff in February of 1908 when he came to their residence in Walker Township. It seemed odd that she'd be off helping a sister with a baby or something and leave her husband behind with two children under the age of five.

As in most cases, a complete reading of the records gives one a better picture--and also makes it clear that there's always more going on than what gets left behind on a piece of paper.

The packet of court papers in the 1908 Hancock County, Illinois,  partition suit involving the family of Riley Rampley is rather large. Sometimes when a file is rather large, it can be tempting to gloss over certain items, particularly when a document appears to be full of legalities. That's when details can be missed. The image that is a part of this post comes from the "Decree Appointing Commissioners to Make Partition," filed in June of 1908.

The initial filings in the case indicated that Charles Neill was the tenant on the Rampley farm with a lease expiring on 1 March 1908. This order indicated that Neill (and probably his family as well) was still on the farm on as of June 1908. The compounding factor here is that Charles Neill's wife, Fannie, was a member of the Rampley family herself.

There is no mention in the court papers as to when the Neill family actually moved from the farm. It is also not mentioned how the Neills reacted to the litigation involving the property on which they were living. Their reaction is not difficult to imagine.

Stay tuned....

New or Updated On FamilySearch: USA-NY, TX FL, OH, and WW2 Draft Cards-1942

The following databases are showing as new or updated on FamilySearch since our last update:

 New York, Book Indexes to Passenger Lists, 1906-1942

Texas, Brownsville Passenger and Crew List of Airplanes, 1943-1964

Florida, Knights Keys Passenger Lists, 1908-1912

Ohio, Passenger and Crew Lists arriving at Ashtabula and Conneaut, 1952-1974

United States World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942

Updates on FamilySearch-USA: NYC and ID

The following databases are showing as new or updated on FamilySearch:

Idaho, Gem County Records, 1877-1962

New York, Book Indexes to Passenger Lists, 1906-1942

Seasons Greetings and My Blogs

Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings, etc. to all my blog readers and followers-your support is greatly appreciated.

Hopefully your
genealogy bucket
is full this year!

For those who were not aware, I write several genealogy blogs--all of which can be viewed for free. Those blogs are:

Genealogy Tip of the Day--one genealogy tip every day
http://genealogytipoftheday.blogspot.com

Daily Genealogy Transcriber--one piece of handwriting to interpret every day
http://genealogytranscriber.blogspot.com

Casefile Clues--the free blog that corresponds to my newsletter, Casefile Clues
http://blog.casefileclues.com

Search Tip of the Day--actually whenever the "spirit" moves
http://genealogysearchtip.blogspot.com/

Rootdig--whatever crosses my genealogy desk--only things I actually use or buy myself--I don't mention or "plug" it if I don't use it myself.
http://rootdig.blogspot.com

Enjoy--the blogs and research tips!

Is It James R. Rampley or James Rampley?

I hate it when something appears out of nowhere when I'm working on something totally unrelated.

In 1909, in an attempt to settle up the estate of her husband Riley Rampley, Nancy J. Rampley made out an affidavit regarding her husband's ownership of his farm. Such affidavits are not uncommon, frequently provide details spanning back several decades, and can provide a variety of information.

Like how Nancy's father-in-law, James Rampley, is mentioned: James R. Rampley.

I've researched this James Rampley since the early days of my research in the 1980s and I can't remember him ever being referred to as James R. Rampley. But it is possible. I won't know until I review all the documents I have on him. Middle initials can be clues or they can be research rabbit holes from which one never returns.

This one reference to a middle initial could also be a mistake. The information was probably handwritten in the process of compiling the affidavit. It was then written into the actual affidavit which Nancy J. Rampley signed. That original affidavit was then transcribed (typed) when the clerk recorded it in the mortgage book. The digital image for this post was made from a photocopy of the mortgage book. So...

It is possible that in the notetaking used to compile the affidavit, in the creation of the actual affidavit, or in the recording of the actual affidavit an extra "R" was inserted. Since the surname begins with an "R," it's also possible the transcriptionist got sidetracked and made a mistake. All of these are real possibilities and get to the elements of analysis discussed in such books as in Evidence Explained  and the BCG Genealogy Standards Manual.

It may also be that the 1869 deed refers to James as James R. Rampley and that his name was just copied from that deed. That's something else I'll have to review in my notes. It's also possible that his daughter-in-law Nancy J. Rampley got his name mixed up.

Is the "R" significant? I'm not certain. But it does intrigue me. James Rampley and his wife had several children and all of their first name come from other family members--except for son Riley.

That's why the potential middle initial of an "R" for James Rampley is so interesting.

Or it may just be another genealogy rabbit hole.

The File That Wouldn't Tell Me Anything

 Nancy J. Rampley, etal.
vs. Charles W. Rampley etal., Case file 391,
Hancock County Circuit Clerk's Office, Carthage, IL.

It is always best when the files are fat and thick.

I first discovered this court case nearly thirty years ago, early in my research when my knowledge of court records, inheritance, research methods, and life in general was much smaller.

I simply wasn't able to afford a copy of the entire file and so I copied one document that listed the names of all the parties and real estate involved.

The case appeared pretty simple. Riley Rampley died in 1893 with no will, a wife, and eleven children. The document that I copied indicated that the youngest child was too young to sign a deed and I thought that was the only real reason why the case was filed. I also thought that there wasn't anything else I could learn from the case.

And I never looked at it again until this week.

I only meant to take a quick look--I needed a date from it for an upcoming Casefile Clues article. I really wasn't intending to read the entire file again. After all, there wouldn't be anything in it that would really help me and I already "knew everything" about this family.

I knew when they were born. I knew when they married. I knew when they died. And, for the most part, I knew where they lived. Reading it wouldn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

I was wrong.

The original bill filed by Nancy and her son William named the tenants on the Riley Rampley farm: Charles and Fannie (Rampley) Neill. I didn't know they had rented her father's farm early in their marriage. That was news to me. It also became apparent that the Neills weren't going to be able to purchase the farm and that the partition suit being filed by Nancy and William effectively evicted them from the property.

The farm was originally to be auctioned at the west door of the Hancock County courthouse. The judge changed the location to the West Point post office--most likely because it was significantly closer to the farm. As mentioned in an earlier blog post, one of the notices was posted at the Breckenridge telephone building. I never dreamed the village of Breckenridge would have had a telephone office in 1909.

The final payment of expenses indicated that one of the Rampley children obtained a judgement from one of their siblings and that the amount of the judgement was attached to their inheritance. I wasn't even aware that Justices of the Peace could hear "small" claims in the early 20th century and issue judgements.

And, my great-grandmother "couldn't be found" in 1909 when the sheriff came a knocking to give her notice of the partition suit.

All from a case file that I thought "wouldn't tell me anything."

What files have you really not gone through?

We'll be mentioning some of these items in upcoming blog posts here and in issues of Casefile Clues. 

Stay tuned.

The Telephone Office in Breckenridge, Illinois, in 1909

Report of sale [part], 2 February 1909, Nancy J. Rampley, etal.
vs. Charles W. Rampley etal., Case file 391,
Hancock County Circuit Clerk's Office, Carthage, IL.

I'll be honest.

I never really gave much thought to when the telephone came to areas where my ancestors lived. Now that I think about it having a broad understanding of how our ancestors likely communicated with those near and far isn't necessarily a bad idea.

Because of my lack of knowledge about the phone system in rural America, I was surprised to see a 1909 reference to a telephone office in a court case in Hancock County, Illinois. When asked where he had posted notices of an upcoming sale, William Rampley listed several places:

• the post office in West Point
• Henry Mensendick's corner
• Howe's shop
• the nearby public highway
• the telephone office in Breckenridge

The posting of these notices is common as is the mentioning of them in court records. The purpose of these notices and the proof of where they were posted is to make certain that the public was adequately notified. I'm always interested in seeing where these notices were published--it indicates where the local gathering places are. The post office seemed like a logical place to post such a notice and the other places were obviously ones that many people frequented or passed on their way to somewhere else. 

But Breckenridge was not a very large place in 1909 and I was surprised to discover they had a telephone office. 

All because I read where the auction notices were published.

Court records can sometimes provide unexpected insight and not just statements about our ancestors. 

Added to my ever growing bucket list is finding out when telephone service came to Hancock County's Walker Township. I doubt many of my families had a telephone in 1909. But I could be wrong.

Assumptions are like that---they can get us in trouble!

Plans for CSI-Genealogy 2015

Plans are well underway for CSI-Genealogy to be held in Galesburg, Illinois. I'm excited to be a part of this 4.5 day genealogical learning experience in the Midwest--28 May through 1 June 2015.

We've been busy and hope you'll be able to join us!

Recent updates:

• Teacher Spotlight: David McDonald
• Teacher Spotlight: Michael Lacopo
• Coordinators
• Cyndi Ingle--REFINING INTERNET AND DIGITAL SKILLS FOR GENEALOGY
• Debbie Mieszala--THE ADVANCING GENEALOGIST: RESEARCH STANDARDS, TOOLS, & RECORDS
• Theresa McMillin--GERMANIC RESEARCH SOURCES AND METHODS
• Michael John Neill-- 
• ADVANCED METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

There's general information on the blog at http://www.sandburggenealogy.com

Ordering Identifying People in the Past

Based on a mention on the Evidence Explained blog, I decided to purchase a copy of E. A. Wrigley's  Identifying People in the Past.

I'm hoping it's not too academic, but I'm also hoping that it at least gets me thinking about some of the issues that people face when researching historical figures (which our dead ancestors are, after all) and working to be as certain as we can be that two people we think are the same man or woman actually are.

Genealogy software programs may have an automatic merge, but researchers know that's it is never quite that simple.

I'm looking forward to receiving my copy of Identifying People in the Past. We'll be writing about it after the first of the year when it arrives.

Stay tuned.

Why Could the Sheriff Not Find Great-Grandma Fannie Neill in 1908? Part 2

This sale referenced in this sale bill was the result of a 1908 Hancock County, Illinois, court case involving the widow of Riley Rampley and his children. Riley had died in 1893 leaving a farm, a widow, eleven children, and no wil. His estate was never brought to probate and in 1908, this partition suit was filed in the Hancock County court.

This is the court case to which Fannie Neill received a summons in February of 1908 when the sheriff returned a notice that she could not be found in the county and left a notice with her husband.

I'm not certain why Nancy  and her one son William (along with his wife Amanda who had a dower interest in the interest in the real estate her husband had inherited) were the plaintiffs in the suit. There were defendants in the case besides Riley's heirs. The Berrys and Alva Kelley were also defendants in the suit because they held mortgages to the farm that had been executed by several of Riley's heirs after his demise.

The tenants on the Rampley farm also had to be defendants--but they were also heirs.

And that may have been part of the problem---but just a part. Stay tuned.

Updated on FamilySearch: USA-WA and MI Probate Records

The following items are showing as new or updated on FamilySearch:

Washington, County Records, 1803-2010

Michigan, Probate Records, 1797-1973

Why Could the Sheriff Not Find Great-Grandma Fannie Neill in 1908?

On 10 February 1908, Carl Bertschi, Hancock County Sheriff went to the farm of Charles and Fannie Neill in Walker Township.

The problem was that Fannie was no where to be found and the summons was left with her husband Charles.  The sheriff made no comment about Fannie's whereabouts, just that she could not be found in Hancock County.

Where was Fannie Neill in February of 1908? Was she missing? Why didn't she come to the door?

Do you always look at the summons that appear in the court records you utilize? Are there clues or stories hiding in those seemingly innocuous slips of paper?

Stay tuned. There's more to this story...I think.

New or Updated on FamilySearch: USA-New Mexico

The following databases are showing as new or updated on FamilySearch since our last update:

New Mexico, County Marriages, 1885-1954

I Ain't Going to Carthage to Sign That Mortgage

It always pays to read the entire document and think about the entire document, not just select portions of it. Sound research methods require it, like those discussed in Evidence Explained  and the BCG Genealogy Standards Manual. 

The image shown in this post is a larger portion of the 1905 mortgage mentioned in a blog post yesterday.

I had wondered if the Neills had actually signed "ONeil" on the mortgage or if the clerk in the county recorder's office had simply miscopied their signature using what was written on the top of the mortgage document.

Then I offhandedly commented that maybe they signed it that way because that's the way it was written on the top part of the mortgage by someone at the bank holding the note. It was meant to be sarcasm.

And like many comments made in jest, it may be closer to the truth than I originally thought. It's the locations that matter--genealogy without geography is simply misplaced research.

The bank was located in Carthage, Illinois, the county seat.

The Neills and Rampley lived in the southern portion of Hancock County, in St. Albans and Walker Township. The property being mortgaged was located in Walker Township.

The Neills and Rampley signed the deed before a Justice of the Peace in West Point, Illinois. West Point was closer for the Neills and Rampley than going all the way into Carthage in the days of horses and buggies. There's no scale on the map, but each of the square townships shown is six miles on a side, providing a perspective.

It would have been a 4-5 mile buggy ride to go to West Point. It would have been a longer ride to get to Carthage. They could have taken the train to Carthage, but it's clear they didn't. After, the Justice of the Peace states that he was in West Point.

It seems possible that the bank wrote out the top portion of the mortgage and had the Neills sign it in front of a Justice of the Peace. There's some details about which I'll never be certain.

After all, we only have the document upon which to base our conclusions.

And you thought mortgages were boring.