Eva Ariel Lattin (1892-1939) on the Isle of Pines, Cuba circa 1913
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Eva Ariel Lattin (1892-1939) on the Isle of Pines, Cuba circa 1913
Eva Ariel Lattin (1892-1939) on the Isle of Pines, Cuba circa 1913
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) in Thailand on May 15, 2001
Village #11, Phitsanulok, Thailand
Tuesday, May 15, 2001
At 6:30 am a local monk walks the road looking for alms. He is dressed in saffron robed and he is followed by an acolyte dressed in white robes. Thidawan's mother offers him some uncooked rice, and he is on his way up the road. Thidawan tells me that he is the brother-in-law of her father. We drove in Thidawan's brother's pickup truck and went into Phichit and we bought a cooked chicken and some cooked Thai noodles. On the return trip we visited a waterfall and stopped at a festival for a local temple. On the same trip we stopped at a cousin of Thidawan's mom that had three puppies. We later visited another cousin that two days earlier had lost their only child when he drowned in the river. His name was pronounced "si-wah-chun". There was a funeral for him and while the monks were chanting a paraying mantis flew into the house and stood upside down from the ceiling rafter and watched for a few minutes and flew away.
Source: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on Tuesday, May 15, 2001
Tuesday, May 15, 2001
At 6:30 am a local monk walks the road looking for alms. He is dressed in saffron robed and he is followed by an acolyte dressed in white robes. Thidawan's mother offers him some uncooked rice, and he is on his way up the road. Thidawan tells me that he is the brother-in-law of her father. We drove in Thidawan's brother's pickup truck and went into Phichit and we bought a cooked chicken and some cooked Thai noodles. On the return trip we visited a waterfall and stopped at a festival for a local temple. On the same trip we stopped at a cousin of Thidawan's mom that had three puppies. We later visited another cousin that two days earlier had lost their only child when he drowned in the river. His name was pronounced "si-wah-chun". There was a funeral for him and while the monks were chanting a paraying mantis flew into the house and stood upside down from the ceiling rafter and watched for a few minutes and flew away.
Source: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on Tuesday, May 15, 2001
Desecration of online graves by findagrave
The website findagrave.com has been guilty of desecrating online graves created by its user community.
The website in the past had allowed an unlimited number of images to be loaded to each individual online grave, but this has been reduced to five. If you pay $5 per grave the limit is upped to 20, but the website still retains the right to purge images its editors find not to fit into the graver community.
The editorial policy, which was never clearly stated by the website has led to the wholesale purging of image documents from the site. I have had almost 500 images deleted from my account. This represents over 100 hours of scanning and transcribing letters and documents, many of which I no longer have access to the originals.
I was reminded in emails and in responces to postings I placed on their community bulletin board that this was a "graver" site and not a genealogical site.
Images removed have been:
My postings begged for an explanation in the editorial policy as to whether this was because disk storage space was scarce, or if their was a major shift in editorial policy.
I also feel that complaining about the image purge put my records under further scrutiny, so that out of 7.7 million entries, my ~2,500 entries were combed through one-by-one to delete out every document image.
This purging of history is bad for all serious gravers and genealogists. Findagrave needs to clearly state its editorial policy on the website and create a list of what can be posted and what cannot be posted. Images deleted should be returned by email to the poster, or the poster should be warned and allowed time to find a new home for their documents.
The website in the past had allowed an unlimited number of images to be loaded to each individual online grave, but this has been reduced to five. If you pay $5 per grave the limit is upped to 20, but the website still retains the right to purge images its editors find not to fit into the graver community.
The editorial policy, which was never clearly stated by the website has led to the wholesale purging of image documents from the site. I have had almost 500 images deleted from my account. This represents over 100 hours of scanning and transcribing letters and documents, many of which I no longer have access to the originals.
I was reminded in emails and in responces to postings I placed on their community bulletin board that this was a "graver" site and not a genealogical site.
Images removed have been:
- personal letters from the deceased that were scanned and transcribed
- marriage certificates
- birth certificates
- census entries
- ship passenger lists
- naturalization certificates
My postings begged for an explanation in the editorial policy as to whether this was because disk storage space was scarce, or if their was a major shift in editorial policy.
I also feel that complaining about the image purge put my records under further scrutiny, so that out of 7.7 million entries, my ~2,500 entries were combed through one-by-one to delete out every document image.
This purging of history is bad for all serious gravers and genealogists. Findagrave needs to clearly state its editorial policy on the website and create a list of what can be posted and what cannot be posted. Images deleted should be returned by email to the poster, or the poster should be warned and allowed time to find a new home for their documents.
1900 US Census with John Edward Winblad (1856-1914) and Salmine Sophia Selvine Pederson (1861-1914)
1900 US Census, New Jersey
New Jersey, Hudson County, Roll 979, Book 1, Page 189
Enumeration District 142, Sheet 06A, Line 07-11, Image 11/20
437 Wayne Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, USA
June 05, 1900
Household:
John Winblad, head, b. May 1856, immigration 1886, married 17 years, longshoreman
Salmina Winblad, wife, b. March 1862, immigration 1887
Anthony Winblad, son, b. April 1886. Learning Making Candy
Maria Winblad, daughter, b. February 1895
Anthony Pederson, boarder?, b. October 1872, married 4 years, immigration 1892, Longshoreman
William Baxter, head, Shipping Clerk
Hoarder? Hroma?, housekeeper, b. December 1872 in NJ, parents from Germany
Household Explained:
Johan (John) Edward Winblad (1856-1914) husband of Salmine Pedersen
Salmine Sophia Selvine Pederson (1861-1914) Wife of John Winblad
Anton (Tony) Julius Winblad II (1886-1975) son of John and Salmine
Marie (May) Elizabeth Winblad (1895-1987) daughter of John and Salmine
Note: Salmina immigrating 1887 seems incorrect since Anton was born in NYC in 1886
Note: 6 children with 2 living, married 17 years
Source: US Census, New Jersey, 1900
John Edward Winblad (1856-1914) passenger list of March 21, 1911
Name: John Edward Winblad (1856-1914)
Home: New York, USA
Date of Arrival: March 21, 1911
Age: 55 years
Ship: Saratoga
Port of Departure: Havana, Cuba
1930 US Census with Arthur Oscar Freudenberg (1891-1968)
1930 US Census, New Jersey
Enumeration District 071, Sheet 01B, Line 56-61, Image 01/81
9 Claremont Avenue, Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey, USA
Household:
Arthur Freudenberg, age 39, married at age 23, real state broker
Mary Freudenberg, wife, age 35, married at age 18
Naida Freudenberg, daughter, age 15
Selma Freudenberg, daughter, age 10
Helen Freudenberg, daughter, age 1 6/12
Otto Winblad, lodger, age 28, widower, typesetter for Jersey Journal
Household Interpreted:
Arthur Oscar Freudenberg (1891-1968) estranged husband of Marie Elizabeth Winblad
Marie Elizabeth Winblad (1895-1987) wife of Arthur Oscar Freudenberg
Naida Muriel Freudenberg (1915-1998) daughter of Arthur Freudenberg and Marie Winblad
Selma (Sally) Louise Freudenberg (1921- ) daughter of Arthur Freudenberg and Marie Winblad
Helen Eloise Freudenberg (1928-1989) daughter of Arthur Freudenberg and Marie Winblad
Otto Perry Winblad (1902-1977) brother of Marie Elizabeth Winblad
Note: Freudenberg is written and indexed as "Freudenburg"
Note: Otto Winblad is listed as lodger instead of brother-in-law
Note: Winblad is written and indexed as "Winbladt "
Note: Maria is written and indexed as Mary [sic] Freudenburg [sic]
Note: Selma is indexed as Selam [sic] Freudenburg [sic]
Note: Naida is indexed as Narda [sic] Freudenburg [sic]
Source: US Census, New Jersey, 1930
1920 US census with Arthur Oscar Freudenberg (1891-1968)
1920 US Census, New Jersey
Enumerator District 236, Sheet 01A, Line 01-04, Image 01/47
58 Oakland Avenue, Jersey City, Hudson County, New Jersey, USA
Household:
A.O. Freudenberg, head, age 28
May Freudenberg, wife, age 24
Naida Freudenberg, daughter, age 5
Otto Winblad, brotherinlaw, age 17
Note: None of these names are properly indexed as Freudenberg or Winblad
Household Interpreted:
Arthur Oscar Freudenberg (1891-1968)
Maria (Mae) Elizabeth Winblad (1895-1987)
Naida Muriel Freudenberg (1915-1999)
Otto Perry Winblad (1902-1977)
Source: US Census, New Jersey, 1920
Standing from left to right are: John Joseph Burke I (1868-1939), the son of William Burke and Margaret Kane in a tie; William Burke (1845-1919) the husband of Margaret Kane who was a milk dealer who retired to Pennsylvania around 1910 and is wearing a vest; Nora M. Finn (1866-1898) the wife of John Joseph Burke I and the daughter of Daniel Finn (1818-1887) and Catherine Creedon (1834-1914) who died of pneumonia. In front row, sitting from left to right are: Mary Margaret Burke (1890-1949), who is the daughter of John Joseph Burke and Nora M. Finn who is holding a doll; Margaret Kane (c1846-1912) who is the wife of William Burke; Mary Ellen Burke (1870-1957), who is the sister of John Joseph Burke and the daughter of William Burke and Margaret Kane.
Ada Augusta Freudenberg (1885-1957) and Louis Julius Freudenberg I (1894-1918) with an unknown family probably in Hoboken around 1917. This photograph came from the collection of Richard Freudenberg (1896-1988) and is now archived with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The other family may be Kahrars, Lindauers or even Kohlmans
From left to right are: Otto Perry Winblad (1902-1977), brother of Maria; Arthur Oscar Freudenberg (1891-1968); Ada Augusta Freudenberg (1885-1957); Maria Elisabeth Winblad III (1895-1987), the wife of Arthur; Ralph Freudenberg (1903-1980); and Naida Muriel Freudenberg (1915-1998), the daughter of Arthur and Maria in Little Falls, New Jersey in 1919. Image from the collection of Ralph Freudenberg (1903-1980)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
State of Nebraska v. Verma J. Harrison on January 22, 1999
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA
State of Nebraska, Appellant,
v.
Verma J. Harrison, Appellee.
State v. Harrison
Filed January 22, 1999. No. S-97-1152.
Petition for further review from the Nebraska Court of Appeals, Miller-Lerman, Chief Judge, and Sievers and Mues, Judges, on appeal thereto from the District Court for Cheyenne County, John D. Knapp, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions.
Paul B. Schaub, Cheyenne County Attorney, for appellant.
James R. Mowbray, of Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, and, on brief, Robin W. Hadfield for appellee.
STATE V. HARRISON
NO. S-97-1152 - filed January 22, 1999.
HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, and MCCORMACK, JJ, and WITTHOFF, D.J.
CONNOLLY, J.
The appellee, Verma J. Harrison, was convicted of two counts of motor vehicle homicide and sentenced to consecutive terms of probation by the district court. The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed Harrison's sentences as excessively lenient, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2322 (Reissue 1995), and imposed consecutive sentences of imprisonment. State v. Harrison, 7 Neb. App. 350, 583 N.W.2d 62 (1998). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing probation.
COLLISION
Harrison was driving a GMC van on Interstate 80, near Sidney, Nebraska, at approximately 7:30 a.m. when the van she was driving collided with a Chrysler Town and Country van being driven by Joseph Nicolich, age 65. Joseph Nicolich's wife, Janice, age 60, was in the front passenger seat, and their granddaughter, Robyn Griffiths, age 11, was in the rear seat. The impact of the collision killed Robyn and Janice.
A Nebraska State Patrol officer determined that Harrison was intoxicated at the time of the collision. Harrison stated that she had been drinking in Ogallala until about 3 a.m., had slept a couple of hours in a motel, and was in a hurry to get to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Six motels located at the Ogallala interchange were contacted, and none had any record of Harrison's being registered on the relevant date.
Joseph Nicolich stated that at the time of the collision, he was traveling on I-80 and had passed a motorist who was stopped on the side of the road. He decided to pull over to offer assistance. He had pulled onto the shoulder and slowed down to approximately 25 miles per hour, when his vehicle was struck in the rear by Harrison's vehicle. According to an accident reconstructionist, Harrison was driving on the shoulder at the time of impact at a speed of approximately 65 to 75 miles per hour. It appeared that Harrison made no attempt to avoid the collision. Harrison stated that she thought she had fallen asleep at the wheel.
ARRAIGNMENT
Harrison was charged with two counts of motor vehicle homicide, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-306(l) (Reissue 1995), for allegedly causing the deaths of Janice and Robyn, unintentionally, while engaged in the operation of a motor vehicle. Harrison pled guilty in the district court to both counts after being informed of her rights by the court. The State recited the factual basis for the charges, which Harrison admitted. The trial court found that Harrison had freely, intelligently, and voluntarily entered each plea and accepted them. The trial court then ordered a presentence investigation.
SENTENCING
Because we are faced with a sentencing issue, we will discuss the facts contained in the presentence report and those presented at the sentencing hearing in some detail.
The presentence report indicates that Harrison's life had been filled with abuse. Her father, who had been a uranium miner, died from lung cancer in 1971. After her father died, her mother had an affair with Harrison's married uncle, who also molested Harrison and her sister. The community later discovered her mother's adulterous relationship, and their family became outcasts. Harrison married an alcoholic in 1988 when she became pregnant, and she was divorced in 1994. Two of Harrison's children were from this marriage. The other child was the result of a relationship with a man who physically abused Harrison. Harrison was 32 years old at the time of sentencing.
Harrison was convicted of public intoxication in 1994 and driving under the influence of alcohol in 1995. Harrison participated in an 8-hour alcohol abuse course as a result of her 1995 conviction, but did not complete it. She had been fined for child neglect in 1992, which was also attributable to alcohol. Harrison began drinking regularly at age 15 and was drinking twice a week by her senior year in high school.
The presentence report contained numerous letters, some in support of and some in opposition to Harrison's receiving the maximum sentence. The letters in support of Harrison's receiving the maximum sentence were adequately characterized by the trial court during the pronouncement of sentence, which statement is set forth below. The letters in support of Harrison's receiving probation, particularly those from the director of the Laramie Head Start Program, the principal of the elementary school attended by Harrison's children, the pastor of Harrison's church, and a counselor and instructor for the AAA DUI Offender Program, indicated that Harrison was a responsible parent, was heavily involved in the community, and was making significant progress toward conquering her alcoholism. According to these letters, Harrison's attempt at rehabilitation was sincere and was likely to be successful.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court asked Harrison whether she had anything she wanted to say. Harrison stated:
Yes, I would like to tell everybody in this courtroom today and say that there is [sic] no words for the depth of the remorse that I feel. The depth of the remorse that I feel, and I will never forget and I won't, Your Honor, for the rest of my life. I have learned so many valuable lessons in this whole thing. For the rest of my life I dedicate myself to my sobriety and then to helping others who are headed down the same way, because I never intended to hurt anybody.
Joseph Nicolich testified on behalf of the State:
State of Nebraska, Appellant,
v.
Verma J. Harrison, Appellee.
State v. Harrison
Filed January 22, 1999. No. S-97-1152.
Petition for further review from the Nebraska Court of Appeals, Miller-Lerman, Chief Judge, and Sievers and Mues, Judges, on appeal thereto from the District Court for Cheyenne County, John D. Knapp, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions.
Paul B. Schaub, Cheyenne County Attorney, for appellant.
James R. Mowbray, of Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, and, on brief, Robin W. Hadfield for appellee.
STATE V. HARRISON
NO. S-97-1152 - filed January 22, 1999.
- Sentences: Probation and Parole: Appeal and Error. When the State appeals from a sentence, contending that it is excessively lenient, an appellate court reviews the record for an abuse of discretion, and a grant of probation will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court.
- Sentences: Appeal and Error. It is not the function of an appellate court to conduct a de novo review of the record to determine whether a sentence is appropriate.
- Sentences. The sentencing court is not limited in its discretion to any mathematically applied set of factors. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge's observation of the defendant's demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's life.
- Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. If the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable or unreasonable, if its action clearly amounts to a denial of justice, if clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence, it has abused its discretion.
- Sentences: Appeal and Error. When applying the criteria enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2322 (Reissue 1995), which authorizes an increase of sentence on appeal, the inquiry is whether the trial court's decision was clearly untenable, unfairly deprived a litigant of a substantial right, and denied a just result. Thus, so long as the trial court's sentence is within the statutorily prescribed limits, is supported by competent evidence, and is not based on irrelevant considerations, an appellate court cannot say that a trial court has abused its discretion. Such a sentence is not untenable, does not unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right, and does not deny a just result.
- Sentences: Probation and Parole: Appeal and Error. The trial court has the opportunity to observe the defendant throughout the judicial process and is in a better position than an appellate court to determine whether the defendant is suited for probation. Moreover, a sentencing judge has broad discretion as to the source and type of information, including personal observations, which may be used as assistance in determining the kind and extent of the punishment to be imposed.
- In determining where probation may be imposed, an appellate court must consider Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2260 (Reissue 1995), whether reviewing a sentence for excessiveness, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1995), or for leniency under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2322 (Reissue 1995).
- Sentences. A sentence should fit the offender and not merely the crime.
- A sentence not involving confinement is to be preferred to a sentence involving partial or total confinement in the absence of affirmative reasons to the contrary.
- Sentences: Probation and Parole. Justice may certainly be served by a sentence of probation. Whether justice is so served is a matter that is, in the first instance, properly left to the trial court.
HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, and MCCORMACK, JJ, and WITTHOFF, D.J.
CONNOLLY, J.
The appellee, Verma J. Harrison, was convicted of two counts of motor vehicle homicide and sentenced to consecutive terms of probation by the district court. The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed Harrison's sentences as excessively lenient, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2322 (Reissue 1995), and imposed consecutive sentences of imprisonment. State v. Harrison, 7 Neb. App. 350, 583 N.W.2d 62 (1998). We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing probation.
BACKGROUND
COLLISION
Harrison was driving a GMC van on Interstate 80, near Sidney, Nebraska, at approximately 7:30 a.m. when the van she was driving collided with a Chrysler Town and Country van being driven by Joseph Nicolich, age 65. Joseph Nicolich's wife, Janice, age 60, was in the front passenger seat, and their granddaughter, Robyn Griffiths, age 11, was in the rear seat. The impact of the collision killed Robyn and Janice.
A Nebraska State Patrol officer determined that Harrison was intoxicated at the time of the collision. Harrison stated that she had been drinking in Ogallala until about 3 a.m., had slept a couple of hours in a motel, and was in a hurry to get to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Six motels located at the Ogallala interchange were contacted, and none had any record of Harrison's being registered on the relevant date.
Joseph Nicolich stated that at the time of the collision, he was traveling on I-80 and had passed a motorist who was stopped on the side of the road. He decided to pull over to offer assistance. He had pulled onto the shoulder and slowed down to approximately 25 miles per hour, when his vehicle was struck in the rear by Harrison's vehicle. According to an accident reconstructionist, Harrison was driving on the shoulder at the time of impact at a speed of approximately 65 to 75 miles per hour. It appeared that Harrison made no attempt to avoid the collision. Harrison stated that she thought she had fallen asleep at the wheel.
ARRAIGNMENT
Harrison was charged with two counts of motor vehicle homicide, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-306(l) (Reissue 1995), for allegedly causing the deaths of Janice and Robyn, unintentionally, while engaged in the operation of a motor vehicle. Harrison pled guilty in the district court to both counts after being informed of her rights by the court. The State recited the factual basis for the charges, which Harrison admitted. The trial court found that Harrison had freely, intelligently, and voluntarily entered each plea and accepted them. The trial court then ordered a presentence investigation.
SENTENCING
Because we are faced with a sentencing issue, we will discuss the facts contained in the presentence report and those presented at the sentencing hearing in some detail.
The presentence report indicates that Harrison's life had been filled with abuse. Her father, who had been a uranium miner, died from lung cancer in 1971. After her father died, her mother had an affair with Harrison's married uncle, who also molested Harrison and her sister. The community later discovered her mother's adulterous relationship, and their family became outcasts. Harrison married an alcoholic in 1988 when she became pregnant, and she was divorced in 1994. Two of Harrison's children were from this marriage. The other child was the result of a relationship with a man who physically abused Harrison. Harrison was 32 years old at the time of sentencing.
Harrison was convicted of public intoxication in 1994 and driving under the influence of alcohol in 1995. Harrison participated in an 8-hour alcohol abuse course as a result of her 1995 conviction, but did not complete it. She had been fined for child neglect in 1992, which was also attributable to alcohol. Harrison began drinking regularly at age 15 and was drinking twice a week by her senior year in high school.
The presentence report contained numerous letters, some in support of and some in opposition to Harrison's receiving the maximum sentence. The letters in support of Harrison's receiving the maximum sentence were adequately characterized by the trial court during the pronouncement of sentence, which statement is set forth below. The letters in support of Harrison's receiving probation, particularly those from the director of the Laramie Head Start Program, the principal of the elementary school attended by Harrison's children, the pastor of Harrison's church, and a counselor and instructor for the AAA DUI Offender Program, indicated that Harrison was a responsible parent, was heavily involved in the community, and was making significant progress toward conquering her alcoholism. According to these letters, Harrison's attempt at rehabilitation was sincere and was likely to be successful.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court asked Harrison whether she had anything she wanted to say. Harrison stated:
Yes, I would like to tell everybody in this courtroom today and say that there is [sic] no words for the depth of the remorse that I feel. The depth of the remorse that I feel, and I will never forget and I won't, Your Honor, for the rest of my life. I have learned so many valuable lessons in this whole thing. For the rest of my life I dedicate myself to my sobriety and then to helping others who are headed down the same way, because I never intended to hurt anybody.
Joseph Nicolich testified on behalf of the State:
I would like to say that I hope Verma Harrison receives the maximum jail time or prison time with no good time off for good behavior or probation.The trial court also had before it a letter handwritten by Cindy Griffiths, Robyn's mother, at the mother's request:
I would think that now Mrs. Harrison is trying to show the authorities how good she can morally and religiously be. I feel she would shake hands or marry the devil if it meant her getting off the charges against her.
October 7, 1997
Dear Justice Knapp,
My name is Cindy Griffiths, my husband's name is Bill Griffiths. We are the parents of Robyn Griffiths (DOB 12/12/84) and the daughter and son-in-law of Janice Nicolich. Robyn and my mother, Janice, were brought to their deaths while driving through Sidney on June 28, 1996. My father, Joe Nicolich, was there too, as he was the driver.
I am writing to you today in regards to Verma Harrison, who was driving the vehicle that crashed into my parents' car on I80. I understand her sentencing date is approaching quickly, and we wanted to let you know our thoughts.
It's a little hard for me to know where to begin. To try to describe the agony of losing our precious daughter and mother is not something we can easily do, for the pain runs so very deep. It's beyond anything we've ever experienced. It's as though a major tidal wave -- a tsunami -- has crashed down upon us and sen...
Standing from left to right are: Ralph Kohlman (1885-1957); Ada Augusta Freudenberg (1884-1957), fiance of Joe Lowe; Joseph Lowe (1903-1979); Charlotte C. Kahrar (1897-1963); Anna Lindauer (1873-1956); Clara Freudenberg (1889-1959); and Arthur O. Lindauer (1867-1944). Sitting from left to right are: Richard Charles Freudenberg II (1918-1994); George Dewey Sanford II (1925-1994); Eloise Lindauer (1860-1935); and Eloise Margerite Sanford (1922- ). The photograph was taken at the home of Ada and Ralph around 1930. The photographer was Richard F. Freudenberg (1896-1988) and this print comes from his collection.
Image of Eugene Freudenberg (1900-1956) birth certificate
Eugene Freudenberg (1900-1956) birth certificate reissued on April 18, 1951
Eloise Lindauer (1860-1935) who was the widow of Maximillian S. Freudenberg (1857-1921) is standing on left; Ada Augusta Freudenberg (1885-1957) who married Ralph Kohlman (1885-1957), Ada has her arms on Richard (Dick) Charles Freudenberg II (1918-1994) the son of Richard F. Freudenberg (1896-1988) who is most likely operating the camera, Eugene (Gene) Freudenberg (1900-1956) who his holding his son Louis Julius Freudenberg II (1922-1986), and Ralph Freudenberg (1903-1980). The photograph was taken at 63 Concord Street in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1923
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
