Hello Jenny, Well, if you had given the names as one, a male, and the other, a female, we all would have twigged straight away. Your email read as though the entries were for the "same person" but with different file numbers for this same person. The dual number system for male & female was an experiment that did not last long. Undoubtedly it helped to quickly compare the number of males versus females who required inquests but it has been confusing for those of us who came later. I fell into the trap 25 years ago when I first began doing local history. I was searching for a local female inquest, and I searched the whole box and did not find her. Of course, it was the "male" box that I was searching, and the help at the VPRO was almost non-existant then, unless you were doing a PhD or Masters degree! I didn't find out about the male/female split until several years later when speaking to a retired solicitor who had himself been caught in this anomolous trap. Anyway, thanks for reminding us all that this peculiarity existed. It's a trap for ALL players. Regards Ada At 22:29 14-10-03 +1000, Jenny Gray wrote: >Ada, > >I have found out why there were two records with the same item/description >number. If there were two separate inquests held in the same year, one >for a male and the other female, the same title/description numbers were >used. When ordering the record online if you check the item description >page it will display the gender....you will then know which one to order. I >did view both inquests, one was male and the other female, one died in >Huntly, the other in Castlemaine, but both in the same year. > >Jenny > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ada Ackerly" <aackers@alphalink.com.au> >To: "Jenny Gray" <jennyg@hotkey.net.au>; ><AUSSIE-GEN-RESEARCH-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2003 13:36 >Subject: Re: [A.G.R. ] Inquest record at PROV > > > > Hello Jenny, > > > > Since there is no charge, if it was me, I'd order both, solve the problem, > > then put up my findings to the list. > > > > It is unusual to have two inquests on the same person, but it is > > possible, with an exhumation and re-discovery of some evidence (e.g. > > poison) not tested in the original inquest. However, it is most unusual. > > The first surmise is that there are two people involved. > > > > Now, I hope you will look into this and put me out of my misery... I love > > the unusual and apparent contradictions, and particularly if I can learn > > something that may be useful for others doing research. I love to drop > > little gems and examples into my guest speaker talks, and they help other > > people who might never have thought that "the different" was possible. > > > > Thanks in anticipation, > > Regards Ada > > > > > > At 20:13 08-10-03 +1000, Jenny Gray wrote: > > >Hi List, > > > > > >Just ordering some records online to view at PROV and have come across >two > > >records with the same Title/Description number, the one I want is > > >VPRS28/POO20/323, but am wondering if I should also order the other >(listed > > >below). Been a long time since I have been to PROV and can't remember >how > > >their indexing works, I'm wondering if both records relate to the same > > >person? > > > > > >ITEM VPRS28/P0020/323 1023/714 No Date No Date > > >ITEM VPRS28/P0020/98 1023/714 No Date No Date > > > > > >Jenny > > > > > > >==== AUSSIE-GEN-RESEARCH Mailing List ==== >Have you visited AUSSIE-GEN-RESEARCH Web site yet? >Please do? And do sign our visitors book? >http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ausgenres/ >==================================================== >Virus warnings are not to be sent to the List! >==================================================== >Searchable Archives at >http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=AUS-GEN-RESEARCH-L > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 regards, Ada Ackerly, Melbourne, Australia formerly Ackerly DocuSearch

Yes, you're right Ada and if I hadn't have been in so much of a hurry to order the records I would have seen the other record was female. I also had a look at some records where the death date was a couple of years or so before the inquest date because that confused me too. It turns out that I ordered the wrong records because the inquest/death dates on the indexes were wrong, something else for those who don't know to be aware of. Something else I found during my visit to PROV that some may not know. I found a listing on the PROV online immigration database. The fiche number was listed as 0, they told me at the PROV that the 0 means the passenger list is on film and not on microfiche. The passenger list I was looking for was for an arrival "into" Victoria in 1876, found the list, but my people were not on it. I found the list on the "outwards" shipping film. The ship did arrive another 6 times after 1876 so hopefully they will be on one of those lists. I'm not picking at the indexers because I think they do a wonderful job, just making those who may not know aware of my findings. Jenny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ada Ackerly" <aackers@alphalink.com.au> To: "Jenny Gray" <jennyg@hotkey.net.au>; <> Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2003 9:00 Subject: Re: [A.G.R. ] Inquest record at PROV > Hello Jenny, > > Well, if you had given the names as one, a male, and the other, a female, > we all would have twigged straight away. Your email read as though the > entries were for the "same person" but with different file numbers for this > same person. > > The dual number system for male & female was an experiment that did not > last long. Undoubtedly it helped to quickly compare the number of males > versus females who required inquests but it has been confusing for those of > us who came later. > > I fell into the trap 25 years ago when I first began doing local > history. I was searching for a local female inquest, and I searched the > whole box and did not find her. Of course, it was the "male" box that I was > searching, and the help at the VPRO was almost non-existant then, unless > you were doing a PhD or Masters degree! I didn't find out about the > male/female split until several years later when speaking to a retired > solicitor who had himself been caught in this anomolous trap. > > Anyway, thanks for reminding us all that this peculiarity existed. It's a > trap for ALL players. > > Regards Ada > > At 22:29 14-10-03 +1000, Jenny Gray wrote: > >Ada, > > > >I have found out why there were two records with the same item/description > >number. If there were two separate inquests held in the same year, one > >for a male and the other female, the same title/description numbers were > >used. When ordering the record online if you check the item description > >page it will display the gender....you will then know which one to order. I > >did view both inquests, one was male and the other female, one died in > >Huntly, the other in Castlemaine, but both in the same year. > > > >Jenny > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ada Ackerly" <aackers@alphalink.com.au> > >To: "Jenny Gray" <jennyg@hotkey.net.au>; > ><AUSSIE-GEN-RESEARCH-L@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2003 13:36 > >Subject: Re: [A.G.R. ] Inquest record at PROV > > > > > > > Hello Jenny, > > > > > > Since there is no charge, if it was me, I'd order both, solve the problem, > > > then put up my findings to the list. > > > > > > It is unusual to have two inquests on the same person, but it is > > > possible, with an exhumation and re-discovery of some evidence (e.g. > > > poison) not tested in the original inquest. However, it is most unusual. > > > The first surmise is that there are two people involved. > > > > > > Now, I hope you will look into this and put me out of my misery... I love > > > the unusual and apparent contradictions, and particularly if I can learn > > > something that may be useful for others doing research. I love to drop > > > little gems and examples into my guest speaker talks, and they help other > > > people who might never have thought that "the different" was possible. > > > > > > Thanks in anticipation, > > > Regards Ada > > >