Several years ago, while researching at the North Carolina State Archives in Raleigh, I was looking at the original will of Cullen Sasser, which he signed in Union County in February 1858. I was excited to see an original will, as most of the wills I've looked at, online and in person, are written into will books by county clerks.
Today, as I was incorporating this will into a family history, it occurred to me that it was probably online by now, at either FamilySearch or Ancestry, or possibly both. So (being curious), I looked it up. Sure enough, on FamilySearch, the original will has been digitized.
Citation: FamilySearch (familysearch.org/search/catalog/457255) > Original wills Presson, Eugene P. - Smith, John A. > image 1675 of 1737, Union County, North Carolina, will of Cullen Smith (1858).
However, when I looked it up in Ancestry's U.S. Wills and Probates collection, I found a copy of the will that had been recorded by the county clerk in the will book.
Citation: "North Carolina, Wills and Probate Records, 1665-1998," Ancestry > Union > Wills, Vol. 1, 1843-1868, p.151, will of Cullen Smith (1858).
Looking at the two wills side by side, there are some obvious differences that point out the advantages and disadvantages of looking at the original versus a copy:
1. The first and most obvious difference is that the clerk made an error in Cullen Smith's grandson's name. Cullen J. Sasser in the original was transcribed as Cullen J. Smith Sasser, with the Smith scratched out. This could lead to some confusion to anyone transcribing the will.
2. The clerk made several changes in capitalization, spacing and punctuation, which may or may not make a difference in the meaning.
3. Cullen Smith mentions his daughter: "And also I and [sic] bequeath to my Daughter Esther who intermarried with Elisha Sasser and the heirs begotten of boddy [sic] the tract of land on which she now lives Containing fifty acres...." The clerk corrected the spelling, but changed the phrase to "on which he now lives."
4. Cullen Smith makes a bequest to his granddaughter Patience A. Sasser; the county clerk wrote grandson, and then lined out "son" and wrote "daughter".
Just these differences in a one-page will make it obvious to anyone to recognize when they're reading a copy of a document, and to realize that there may be errors done in the copying.
1. The first and most obvious difference is that the clerk made an error in Cullen Smith's grandson's name. Cullen J. Sasser in the original was transcribed as Cullen J. Smith Sasser, with the Smith scratched out. This could lead to some confusion to anyone transcribing the will.
2. The clerk made several changes in capitalization, spacing and punctuation, which may or may not make a difference in the meaning.
3. Cullen Smith mentions his daughter: "And also I and [sic] bequeath to my Daughter Esther who intermarried with Elisha Sasser and the heirs begotten of boddy [sic] the tract of land on which she now lives Containing fifty acres...." The clerk corrected the spelling, but changed the phrase to "on which he now lives."
4. Cullen Smith makes a bequest to his granddaughter Patience A. Sasser; the county clerk wrote grandson, and then lined out "son" and wrote "daughter".
Just these differences in a one-page will make it obvious to anyone to recognize when they're reading a copy of a document, and to realize that there may be errors done in the copying.
RSS Feed