Treasure Chest Thursday: A Short Synopsis of the Beginning of the Schafer Property

This sheet of paper is 8 1/2" x 10 7/8".  It is off-white in color, perhaps a light cream.  It is 20# bond with no watermark.  Everything on it is typed.  The outline of a rusted paper clip is visible at the top of the page.  (I removed the paper clip and disposed of it.)

This page was clipped to two others that are carbon copies of it.  Unlike many of the carbons I have looked at while ploughing through the reams of paperwork that Jean La Forêt created (and I'm pretty sure he typed this one also), none of these three pages has been amended in a way to make it different from the others, which is why I decided not to post the other two copies.  They're all exactly the same in content.

As mentioned above, everything is typed on the paper, so no transcription is required.  Only two changes were made to what was originally typed.  First, near the top, in the section that begins "May ...... 1865", at the end of the second line, the word beginning with "Novb" had the letters "er" typed over whatevrer was there to begin with, which is no longer visible.  Second, at the bottom of the page, at the end of the last paragraph, "Was he then abetted" was typed and then erased on all three copies.

Most of the facts presented here have been seen in previous documents from Jean.  The new piece of information is in the last section, which points out that when the widow Elizabeth (Walz) Schafer married Louis Curdt, her powers as administratrix of her late husband's estate and any position she may have had as guardian of the property for her daughter, Emma Margaret Schafer, would have passed to her new husband.  The document also states that Louis and Elizabeth Curdt never reported an accounting of the estate.

Since John Schafer died intestate, the disposition of his property would have relied on the existing laws at the time in Missouri.  While Jean did quote from The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, 1899, an important section that did not appear on that sheet was the actual order of distribution of property when there was no will.

On page 739 in the edition of the Statutes which I found previously, Section 2908, "Real and personal estate descends, to whom", states that after debts are paid and the widow receives her dower, the estate goes "[f]irst, to his children."  That would have made Emma the sole heir after her mother had received her share as widow.  As Emma was a minor when her father died, a guardian would have been appointed to oversee the property that was to come to Emma when she reached adulthood.

I find it significant that nowhere in all the papers I received when I was talked into taking this on is there a copy of any documents having to do with John Schafer's estate:  no appointment of administratrix, no inventory, no list of debts, no distribution, no guardian report, no nothin'.  Considering how diligent Jean appears to have been with other aspects of documentation and saving paper, that's rather surprising.  Perhaps he did acquire a copy, which is what led him to say that the the Curdts never "rendered an account."  So now I have to wonder if those documents were among the others and were removed by an unknown person at some point in the past.

After I've gone through the remaining papers in my little treasure chest (there's still quite a pile left), obtaining a copy of John Schafer's probate file may have just moved to the top of my to-do list.

Treasure Chest Thursday: It's a Conspiracy!

There wasn't a Treasure Chest Thursday post last week, partly because I was at the IAJGS International Conference on Jewish Genealogy, and partly because the large flatbed scanner I have been using was out of commission.  When I returned from Florida, however, I discovered that the scanner had been repaired, so I started scanning the oversize pages regarding the property/inheritance dispute between Emma (Schafer) La Forêt and her Curdt siblings.

While I was scanning, this little scrap of paper jumped out, begging for attention.  I have to admit, I laughed when I first saw it, but I thought it was a fine way to get back into the spirit of Jean's feelings regarding the entire situation with the Curdts.

The paper is 5" x 3 13/16".  It's a grayish off-white with lines lightly printed in blue (I think), columns in red, and a border in red and blue.  It was neatly torn off of a larger piece of paper.  It looks as though it might have come from an accounting ledger or something similar.

The only words on it are "Conspiracy / Curdt — Schaefer", in what appears to be Jean La Forêt's handwriting.  We have seen the word "conspiracy" used previously in the documents connected to this story.  In fact, it was at the very beginning of my posts, in the typed history of Emma Schafer:

"From this time on, there existed a Conspiracy to defraud and despoil EMMA M. SCHAFER of her property."

and

"Thus Elizabeth Curdt disclosed her partnership in the CONSPIRACY, and stuck to her criminal husband against her first child."

So it's very clear what Jean thought of the goings-on.  Maybe this little note was the first time he had put it in writing.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Jean La Forêt Does Land Research

This sheet of paper is 8 1/2" x 13".  It's a piece of off-white 20# bond with a watermark of BERKSHIRE / SOUVENIR BOND / USA.  It has a small rectangular piece of paper, on which is written "Original" in pencil, folded over the upper left corner.  This page is followed by eleven others on the same type of paper.  They are backed by a rectangular piece of an advertising poster, which appears to have been cut down to size for the purpose of backing these pages.

Jean La Forêt was definitely willing to spend time on research.  It must have taken many hours to find all the records he cites in this document and then type up the summaries.  He researched the property that John Schafer, Emma (Schafer) La Forêt's father, bought in 1856 from that purchase through to 1919, the year Emma's mother died.  He even included transcriptions from Louis and Elizabeth Curdt's divorce case.  Here's a quick overview of the contents:

1856:  John Schafer bought lots 9 and 10.

1864:  A warranty deed was executed for lot 9.  The property was released on margin October 19, 1867, six weeks after letters of administration were granted to Elizabeth Schafer to handle her deceased husband's estate.

1870:  John Schafer's estate was settled.

1874:  Louis Curdt and Mrs. Elizabeth Schafer married.

1883:  Emil Petit and Emma Schafer married.

1885:  Emil and Emma Petit's waiver was filed.

1885:  Louis and Elizabeth Curdt filed a deed of trust on the land with a life insurance company.

1891:  Elizabeth Curdt divorced Louis Curdt on grounds of desertion.  She was awarded custoy of Louisa, August, and Alvina and ownership of lots 9 and 10 but received no alimony.

1891:  Louis Curdt filed a quit claim on the two lots.

1891:  Elizabeth Curdt took out a $2,800 mortgage on the land.  She paid it off in 1895.

1892:  Elizabeth Curdt leased some part of the land for two years to C. W. Seidel.

1896:  Elizabeth Curdt deeded part of lot 10 to Charles Frederick Schaefer (Louisa's husband), apparently for $3,000.

1897:  Charles and Louisa Schaefer filed a quit claim to Elizabeth Curdt for half of the property deeded in 1896.  The amount is $1 and "other consideration."

1897:  Elizabeth Curdt filed a quit claim to Charles and Louisa Schaefer, also for $1 and other consideration, to exchange property.

1898:  Elizabeth Curdt took out a mortgage for $2,800.  She paid it off in 1900.

1898:  Charles and Louisa Schaefer took out a mortgage for $1,000.  It appears to have been paid off in 1904.

1900:  Elizabeth Curdt took out a mortgage for $1,500.  She paid it off in 1903.

1901:  Charles and Louise Schaefer sold part of lot 10 to August Eves for $3,350.

1901:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 10 to Charles Schaefer for $600.

1903:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 9 to Jacob Wagner for $2,000.  In 1912 Jacob Wagner and his wife, Louisa, sold the land for $15,000.

1903:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 9 to William Curdt (a relative of Louis?) for $1,300.  In 1912 William Curdt and his wife, Katarine, sold the land for $5,500.

1906:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lot 10 to her daughter Alvina for $1,000.  In 1919, after Alvina had married, she and her husband, Edward Schulte, sold this for $1 on a quit claim deed to Emma Opperman.

1906:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lots 9 and 10 to her son, August Curdt, for $500.  In 1909 August and his wife, Mathilda, sold the property to his brother-in-law Charles Schaefer for $1 and part of the land Charles and Louisa Schaefer received in 1906.  August and Mathilda Curdt sold this second piece of land in 1912 for $6,000.

1906:  Elizabeth Curdt sold part of lots 9 and 10 to Charles Schaefer for $875.  In 1912 Charles and Louisa Schaefer sold part of this land for $5,600.  In 1914 they sold an additional section for $2,000.

1912:  Elizabeth Curdt sold for $100 a small easement adjoining property she previously sold.

I can see from this how one could interpret the sales and resales as ripping off Elizabeth Curdt.  Playing devil's advocate, however, it could be that the land had simply appreciated quite a bit due to development in the interim between Elizabeth selling the lots and the children reselling them.  It also could be the case that Elizabeth was being generous with her children.  It's obvious from previous documents that Jean and Emma believed she was being taken advantage of.  I don't think I see enough evidence here of that, though.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Another Copy of Emile Petit's "Interrogation"

This document is two sheets of paper attached to each other in the upper left corner by some sort of paste or glue, a technique we have seen several times.  The first page is 8 1/2" x 10 15/16"; the second is 8 1/2" x 11 1/16".  The third image is the reverse of the second page.  The first page is about 20# in weight but not high-quality paper; it has no watermark.  The second page is of better quality and has a watermark:  "BERKSHIRE SOUVENIR BOND USA."  Almost everything on these pages is typed, with the exceptions of the dates on the top of the first page, a handwritten "s" at the bottom of the first page, and the words "Questions to Petit" on the back of the second page.

In case this sounds familiar, it should.  This is another copy of Jean La Forêt's questions posed to Emile Petit, which I posted on March 16.  Those copies were in an envelope, while this one was separate.  The sizes of the pages are different, but the types of paper are the same.

Now that I have all the copies together in one place, it's clear that the one above is the original typed version of the second set in the March post.  The letter impressions on the page are crisper, and the indentations in the paper are deeper than in the March copy.  Shame on me for not noticing in March that the pages I had in hand had the fuzzy look of a carbon copy.

As these pages are the original typed copies of the set from March, they unfortunately add no new information to our ongoing narrative.  They do, however, reinforce that Jean La Forêt wanted to make sure he had plenty of copies of documents.  Maybe he was worried that one of Emma's siblings would try to destroy papers and derail his investigation.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Revisiting Louis Curdt's Legal Waiver

In March, I posted three transcriptions of Louis Curdt's 1885 waiver of dower of Elizabeth (Walz) Curdt.  At the time I came up with a couple of ideas for where the original might be.  It turns out that I have one and didn't know it. Apparently when I sorted through all the documents, I didn't notice that I had two different sets of these waivers.  Well, now I know!

This sheet of paper is 7 1/2" x 12 1/2".  It's about 20# weight.  It has an embossed logo of some sort in the upper left, but I can't read it.  (I'm going to scan it at 600 DPI and see if that helps.  If not, I'll go for 1200.)  The embossing was so strong that it cut through the paper in one place.  The sheet has been folded multiple times, in different places.  On the main text side, the only ones that seem to be visible in the scan are the two horizontal lines that divide the page into approximate thirds.  On the reverse side, which has only "Waiver of Dower rights" in blue pencil, the folds framing the text and one that bisects that section can be seen clearly.

These are copies of two of the three transcriptions I posted in March.  The upper one is the original typed version of the third transcription from March (which now that I have this one in hand I've looked at again, and it is a carbon copy).  This sheet also has a "DEPOSIT BOND" watermark and is the same size and color as the March item.  The page has two more folds than the carbon copy does.  The only difference between the two transcriptions is that the name "Louis" in the signature line is slightly lower in the carbon copy.  The name was typed directly with the typewriter.  It looks as though the carbon copy name was erased first, but I'm not totally sure.  One other difference is that this page has "Waiver of Right of Dower" in blue pencil on the reverse side.

The lower image is a carbon copy of the second transcription posted in March.  This sheet is the same size, 8 1/2" x 12 1/2", appears to be the same weight and color, and has folds in the same places.  The differences between these two documents are the handwritten word "Sections" in blue pencil on the original typed page (the March copy) and slightly different placement of the words "all my" in the next to last line of the long paragraph.  Now that I have the two pages next to each other, I can see that the original typed version had something else typed there that was removed and then "all my" typed in.  On the carbon copy, it appears that whatever was typed with the carbon paper was erased and "all my" typed in its place.

So altogether I have an original handwritten copy of the waiver from Louis Curdt, three typed transcriptions (all differing slightly in wording), and carbon copies of two of the transcriptions.  Someone in this family (I'm still guessing Jean) was just a little obsessive about having extra copies.  Of course, now that I have a handwritten copy, I just have to transcribe it and compare it to Jean's work.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

This witnesseth that I have received for a valuable consideration a warranty deed of of Louis Emile Petit and Emma his wife to me the undersigned Louis Curdt to lots 9 & 10 of a Subdivision of John Smith's Estate in Seys[?] No 1901 & 1902, T 46 R 6 East in StLouis [sic] County State of Missouri U. S. of America.  The deed, though, convoying [sic] by its face an absolute title and unincumbered [sic], is conveying only the title subject to the dower of Elizabeth Curdt, late widow of John Schaefer  Now for good causes & considerations I hereby for myself and for my ligal [sic] representatives do hereby waive all my claims against said Petit & wife on account of said dower interest

Signed and sealed this 19th day September 1885 at StLouis [sic] Mo

[signed] Louis Curdt [seal]

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Even though this might be Louis Curdt's original signature (it does seem to be different handwriting from that on the rest of the page, although I don't know if it's "German" script or writing, as Jean typed in his transcriptions), this does not appear to be the original document.  The word "seal" surrounded in curlicues suggests that this is a handwritten copy of an original that had a seal on it.  Unfortunately, this copy is not dated, so there's no way to tell if it was made around the time of the 1885 waiver or when Elizabeth Curdt died in 1919.

At least now we know why Jean had "Seys" in one of his transcriptions — that is certainly what it looks like to me in this original.  At first I thought that the "y" didn't look like other "y"s in the document, but then I found a couple that looked at least similar.  And if it isn't a y, I have no idea what it could be.  Maybe there is yet another "original", which might be more legible.

Overall Jean's transcriptions are all very close to the handwritten copy, although he did correct the spelling of "legal" every time.  Certainly no significant deviation was made, and the meaning is the same across all three.  The only major difference is still Seys versus Sections versus Surveys.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Emile Petit Answers Questions about Events in Missouri

This is a set of three pages linked together.  The first page is a small piece of white paper, 5 1/2" x 6 5/8".  It feels like 20# bond; it has no watermark.  It has some typed information at the top and a clipped newspaper article that has been glued onto it sideways.

The second page is 8 1/2" x 10 7/8".  It is also white, feels like 20# bond, and has no watermark.  It has typwritten and handwritten material on both sides.  What are labeled as "ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS" were typed, while they were numbered by hand.  At the top of the front page in the upper left is "Rec'd 2-2-1920" in handwriting.  On the reverse, in handwriting at the bottom of the page, are "I state these answers are true to the best of my knowledge" and the signed name of Emile Petit, and "Witness" with the signed name of Daniel J. Kelly.

The third page is 8 1/2" x 12 3/4".  This is a grayish-yellowish off-white paper.  It's about 20# in weight and has no watermark.  It's a lesser quality paper than the previous two.  It is typed on the face with "Answ'd Jan. 26-20" in the upper left and "January 19-1920" in the upper right in handwriting.  The reverse has "Questions to Petit" handwritten in blue pencil.  The handwriting is similar to that in Jean La Forêt's journal.

This must have been part of Jean's investigation into what happened to Emma's inheritance.  When Emma wrote, "It took my husband a good while to get all the information in the case", I was not expecting to see that he had created an actual questionnaire.  He obviously approached the situation as a serious matter.

It appears that Emile Petit was still living in Vallejo.  At least, that's the location given on the answers page.

The second and third pages are held together by a rusted straight pin in the upper left corner.  The small first page has been glued onto the the second page.

These scans are of two sheets of paper, one represented by the first image and one by the second and third images.  The first page is 8 1/2" x 11" and is a grayish off-white.  It feels about 20# in weight.  There is no watermark.  It is all typewritten except for the dates in handwriting at the top of the page:  "January 19 - 1920"; "Answ'd Jan 26 - 20"; and "Rec'd Answers - 2-2-20."  The writing is again similar to that of Jean La Forêt's from his journal.

The second page is 8 1/2" x 11 3/8".  It is whiter than the first page.  It has a watermark:  BERKSHIRE SOUVENIR BOND USA.  The reverse side of the page has "Questions to Petit" in what appears to be Jean's handwriting in blue pencil.  These two pages are glued to each other in the upper left corner.

These pages appear to be copies of the first set.  The headers on the pages differ, and the second set is not a verbatim copy, but the bulk of the text is the same.  On the copy of the answers, the names of the signatures are typed.

This envelope is 9 1/2" x 4 1/8".  It is yellowish and somewhat stained in the lower left corner.  It's sturdy, apparently heavier than 20# paper.  As with the envelope holding the transcription of Louis Curdt's statement, I believe the printing was by Jean La Forêt.  The documents shown above were folded and in this envelope when I received everything.

These two sets of documents are reminiscent of the Louis Curdt set in that Jean made an extra copy.  I wonder if he was afraid that someone was going to try to take the original?  Or he may have just taken this type of precaution all the time.  After all, he kept all sorts of items that I've written about previously, even empty envelopes.  He was very good at saving things.

We've seen the response to one of the questions posed of Emile Petit previously.  In the first part of Emma's handwritten narrative, she quoted Petit's answer to question #10 (although she had an incorrect given name for the witness).  So that narrative must have been written after February 2, 1920, the date Jean wrote that he had received Petit's answers.

The rest of the questions and answers don't make a totally damning case against Louis Curdt, but he doesn't come off looking very good.  Neither does Emma's mother, Elizabeth.  Actually, neither does Petit, who said "I don't know" a lot.  On the other hand, he probably really didn't know.

When I posted the certificate for Emile Petit and Emma Schafer's marriage, I wondered at the time who the witnesses were, and now we have the answer:  Fortin, who was Petit's landlord at the hotel in which he was staying in Clayton, and Claud, a restaurant owner in Clayton.  Petit doesn't really seem to have known either one, and of course he didn't know how Curdt knew them.

Emma wrote in the second part of her narrative that she and Jean had taken "legal advice", and that is referenced here:  "The case is good and a good result can be expected.  This is the honest belief of several good lawyers."  Unfortunately, Jean and Emma did not have the money to press the case, and it would appear that Emma's children either could not or would not help her as was suggested:  "the children would help her in proportion in the expenses of the Court and the lawyers."  I'm guessing no court case was ever filed.

Four of Petit's responses to Jean's questions referred to Pete Bruno.  Bruno was the only person Petit knew who could verify Petit's information about what really happened at the time of Emma's marriage, and who might know more about what was going on.  Jean included a copy of the newspaper clipping about Bruno's death in this packet.  There's nothing in the description of the accident in which Bruno died to suggest that it was anything but an accident; maybe the fact that Bruno had died and was therefore unavailable to provide any additional information was the ultimate reason Jean and Emma did not pursue a court case.

Treasure Chest Thursday: A Surprise Trove about Louis Curdt and Family

One of the most enjoyable things about having a blog is having people contact you because they found one of your posts interesting.  When someone has a personal connection to the stories you've written, it's even better.

I have been posting since December of 2015 about the "treasure chest" of items I was given regarding Emma Margaret Schafer and her family members, including her mother, stepfather, first and second husbands, and children.  After last week's post about Louis Curdt, Emma's stepfather, Louis' great-granddaughter wrote to me.  She apparently found my blog while searching for Louis' name online.  She has told me a lot about Louis and shared several family photographs and documents!

In Emma's handwritten narrative, she mentioned almost in passing that her mother had divorced Louis Curdt.  I have now learned that at some point after that, Louis remarried, to Louisa Hulvey:

In light of the comments in the typed narrative about Louis molesting Emma when she was a young teenager, I find it interesting that Louis' second wife was under 18 years of age when they married.  Louisa's father had to give his "written consent" to the marriage.  Unfortunately, this clip of the marriage license doesn't include when Louis and Louisa were married, but Louis was born about 1849 and Louisa about 1878, and their first child was born about 1896, so my guess is 1895 or so for the marriage.

Louis and Louisa had four children:  Henry John (1896-1951), Katherine (1898-?), Mary Katherine (1899-1987), and John (1902-1927).  Deb, the person who wrote to me, is Mary's granddaughter.  Mary is in the photo at the top of this post, standing with her parents, Louisa and Louis (who looks like a grumpy old cuss).  In the photo below she is with her siblings Henry and Katherine (Katie); Mary is on the left.

This is Albert -- Deb's father, Mary's son, and Louis' grandson.

Deb also shared a few items related to Louis' marriage to Elizabeth, Emma's mother.  One is this copy of the January 22, 1874 marriage record for Louis Curdt and Elizabeth.  We already knew that Elizabeth was widowed, because Emma's father had died, but the marriage record indicates Curdt was also a widower.

I now know what one of Emma's half-siblings looked like.  Deb has two photos of Alvina, the youngest child of Louis and Elizabeth Curdt.  This is her as a fashionable young woman.  She was born about 1881, so my estimate for this photo is about 1897.

The second photo is Alvina and her husband, Edward Schulte.  (Emma's oldest daughter from her marriage to Emile Petit, Marie, married a William H. Schulte in Missouri.  I suspect the two Schultes are related.)

Even though it's cool to have photos of Alvina, I need to keep in mind that she was purportedly part of the conspiracy to deprive Emma of her inheritance.  So she also might have been a not-so-nice person.

Treasure Chest Thursday: A Legal Waiver from Louis Curdt

This piece of paper is 8 1/2" x 12 1/2", which seems an odd size now but which might have been a standard early in the 20th century.  The paper is yellowed with age but was probably white or off-white originally.  It feels about 20# in weight but not of great quality.  There is no watermark.  The sheet was folded somewhat in thirds and then had one additional fold about an inch in depth.  The images above are of the two sides of the page.  The main body of text is typed.  The reverse has three handwritten words.

This appears to be a transcription of a document.  The location of the original document is not noted, but it might have been something that was held by the family.  It's possible that it was filed with the county clerk in St. Louis County, Missouri.

The transcription states that Louis Curdt paid a "valuable consideration" for a deed from Emile and Emma (Schafer) Petit but does not give the amount.  If it were filed with the county, I would expect the amount to be listed.  The focus in this is really the statement that Elizabeth Curdt's dower is being conveyed.

The words "Waiver of Dower" on the reverse of the page remind me of Jean La Forêt's handwriting.

The first of these two documents is also 8 1/2" x 12 1/2".  The paper appears similar in color and in weight to that in the first document described above.  This page also has no watermark.  The sheet was also folded somewhat in thirds and then had one additional fold about an inch in depth.  Unlike the first document, no handwriting appears on the back.

The second document is on a standard 8 1/2" x 11" piece of paper.  This sheet is grayer in color than the other two.  It was folded in thirds.  It's about 20# in weight, but this has a watermark:  DEPOSIT BOND.  It also has no handwriting.

Both of these are typed.  The text is almost exactly the same as that on the first document.  One difference is that the first and second have a long intro paragraph explaining that the typing is a true copy of a waiver, whereas the third document has only the word "COPY" at the top.

The other significant difference is the term used to describe the parts of John Smith's estate being conveyed.  The first document has "Surveys", the second "Sections", and the third "Seys."  The rest of the description of the property is the same.  Other differences are minor, such as a period being dropped.

I'm not sure, but I think this waiver is related to Emile Petit's visit to the United States in 1885.  In the first part of her handwritten narrative, Emma wrote that Emile left Lorraine for Missouri on June 10, 1885.  She didn't state when he returned but did mention that he brought $3,000 with him.  She also wrote that she signed a document which she did not know the purpose of.  It seems to me that Emma and Emile each having signed a document could have created the conveyance of dower which Curdt acknowledged.  If that is the case, then these three copies of the waiver were probably part of the research that Jean La Forêt conducted while investigating what happened to Emma's inheritance.  Wasn't it nice of Louis Curdt to waive his claims against Emile and Emma, now that he'd apparently gotten control of the land.

I don't understand the reference to John Smith's estate.  Why is it John Smith and not John Schaefer?

This is the envelope in which the three copies of the waiver were found by me. It is 9 1/2" x 4 1/8".  As the image shows, it is yellowish and darker around the edges.  It's fairly sturdy, heavier than 20# in weight.  Considering the fancy "f" in "of" and the flourishes and underlines, I suspect this might be Jean La Forêt's printing.

Treasure Chest Thursday: Narrative of Emma M. Petit (conclusion)

As promised in last week's Treasure Chest Thursday, this week's item from the genealogy "treasure chest" I was given is the remaining four pages of the document titled "In Lorraine, Germany - Narrative of Emma M. Petit, nee Schafer."  Above is the back of the fourth sheet, which simply stops midsentence.  I again have not transcribed Emma's struck-out writing.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

3 /

Emile Petit is a drinking man and gambler when he possesses the means to satisfy these two inclinations, thus the money received and the bakery only lasted a very few years.  With the remaining few hundred dollars we returned to America, in fact to California were [sic], to start, we had a pretty hard time of it, but little by little I took matters in my own hands and we worked ourselves on our feet again.  We did fairly well for a time but Petit could not stand prosperity and he fell back to his former vices, drinking and gambling.  I had to do something to save the situation, for I had three young children, so I asked for and was given a divorce, Petit not entering any defense, not even presenting himself in Court.  This happened in 1917 [actually 1907].

During all this time I never knew what happened in my former home or what was going on in my mothers family –  I was indirectly informed that mother divorced her husband Louis Curdt –  I made several flying calls to her home while in California, after her divorce while she was living with her only unmarried daughter Alvina.  I even sent my oldest daughter to her for a while.  This daughter is now the wife of William H. Schulte, a farmer of Maryland Heights, in this County –

Everything done by mother and her Curdt children, was done in the dark, in hiding; in fact none of their doings leaked outside their own intimate Curdt family circle.

I heard indirectly that mother sold some small lots of my father's estate, but, as I was under the firm impression that one half of the property belonged to mother in full property and the other have for her use during her lifetime, I did not bother about the matter, as, in my mind, she had a perfect right to dispose of her share of the property.  I never consulted a lawyer in the matter, having always had an unshaken confidence in my mother.  I never remained long enough in Missouri to get acquainted and through acquaintance receive advice, even suggestions.

In 1908 I went to Florida and became married again, and in 1909, with my husband, went to Europe and from there to North Africa, Algiers, where my husband was appointed U.S. Vice Consul.  I came back from Algiers in 1917, and came to live in Missouri, to await the end of the war.  My husband left Algeria in 1918, to enter the armed service against Germany; left the service (Marine Corps) in 1919 and came to join me in Missouri.

In April 1919 my mother lost her life, being burned fatally, her clothes catching fire from an open oven outside her home, and no one present.  She died in a few hours, without being able to give any kind of information.  That very day I expected my mother at my house and we were going to speak over succession matters.  Is it not strange that just on the day we were to have met, such an awful accident should occur?  I was at her bedside when she died, inconsolate, almost heartbroken –

4 /

I loved my mother and never doubted her.  I had even Confidence in my half sisters and brother, for I never knew anything of their diabolical proceedings.  Meanwhile my husband received some convincing proofs that I had been robbed in a shameful manner, but would not do anything until after the family meeting which had necessarily to take place within a month, but during this month my husband found out most of the transactions of the well organized conspiration –  He found out that all the property in hands of Schaefer & his wife Louisa Curdt, Fred. Shulte and his wife Alvina Curdt, and August Curdt and his wife, for which I understood they paid a yearly rental, was actually sold to them, although they never paid the price mentioned in the deeds, but instead paid so much per acre per year –

We found out that in 1906, the three Curdt's with the consent of the mother, obtained by fraudulent means, under influence and nefaste (?) moral pressure, divided among themselves all the property left from the John Schafer's Estate, amounting to about one half of the estate.

This was a hard blow to us, as we lost a great deal during the war, on account of the war, and were really in need, living for the present on my husband's retired pay, almost not sufficient to live on, and nothing else in view –

It took my husband a good while to get all the information in the case and quite an amount of money for which we would have had many other uses.

In common with my husband we decided to study the matter for a month or even two, and we took legal advice.  We then considered all the evidence for and against, we foresaw a great deal of expenses and — we were without cash on hand or means to get it.  So we concluded that, should the Curdts

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

And that's where the narrative ends, as can be seen in the image at the top.  There's nothing else in what I was given that seems to pick up the story from where this leaves off.

Between this narrative and the typed one, we have a good overview of Emma's life until about 1919–1920, shortly after her mother died.  It's clear in this section that Emma now knows she was swindled out of her inheritance by her mother, stepfather, and half-siblings.  Unfortunately, it appears that she was unable to do anything about the situation, as she and her second husband had no money to pursue a civil case.  Emma also raises the question, albeit subtly, that her mother might have been murdered, or at least that her death might not have been entirely accidental.

After having typed this, I'm leaning slightly more toward Emma being the person who typed the first narrative.  I noticed that "were" was used instead of "where" in both.  I realize it isn't definitive, but it stood out to me.

The word "nefaste" is not one with which I am familiar.  Emma writes clearly, and I'm sure that's the spelling.  I searched for it online and found it is a French word that means "harmful."  I don't know if I have the right word or not.

Emma wrote that her oldest daughter was married to William H. Schulte and living in Maryland Heights, of "this County."  That would be St. Louis County, where the Curdts also lived.

I realized there were some common surnames in the two halves of Emma's family.  Her maiden name was Schafer, and one of the Curdt daughters married a Schaefer, a spelling used for Emma in the typed narrative.  Emma's daughter married a Schulte, and Alvina Curdt, the other half-sister, married a Shulte.  This might have been an insular community which had a lot of intermarraige between families.

Even with just these two documents, I'm beginning to understand why the woman who originally had these materials found the story interesting enough to try to learn more about it.  I'm looking forward to seeing what the other documents tell us!

Treasure Chest Thursday: Narrative of Emma M. Petit

Last week I started working on the "treasure chest" that another genealogist gifted to me, beginning with Emma M. Schafer, the person who seemed to be the focus of the story.  The first document chronologically in the story related the early years of her life, up to her marriage at the age of 16 and departure to Europe with her husband soon after.

The second document is titled "In Lorraine, Germany - Narrative of Emma M. Petit, nee Schafer."  It consists of four sheets of bond paper with no apparent watermark, with handwriting on both sides of each sheet.  Judging by the point of view of the narrative, it seems to be written by Emma herself.  As the letter is so long, this week I will post my transcription of the first four pages and finish with the final four pages next week.  My transcription follows (for ease in reading, I have chosen not to transcribe the text that Emma struck out):

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

0

——————

In Lorraine, Germany -

——————

Narrative of Emma M. Petit, nee Schafer

——————

On the 23rd of December we reached the little village of Genestroff, near Dieuze, Lorraine, a french speaking country although part of Germany since 1870 —  We were received, more or less enthusiastically, by the parents and two sisters of my husband, belonging to the middle peasant class, small real estate owners of the country —  They only understand french and a french dialect spoken in that part of Lorraine.  I could not speak with them otherwise than by signs, and they could not understand me = my husband had to translate everything.  But he himself did not know much of the English language and we had to get along as well as we could with the little German I acquired at home, which language my husband learned a little while in the german army in 1880 and 1881 —

We did for the best we could awaiting the help promised by mother; my husband worked as a baker's assistant and I helped around the little farm —

But the promised help never materialized and in 1885 it was necessary for me to do something as I was threatened by the parents of my husband to be sent away if I could not procure the means to establish a bakery in Dieuze, the nearby town, as my husband told them we would do –

Under the pression of interested advice I consented, in June 1885 to give my husband Emile Petit a "General Power-of-Attorney" to go to Missouri, armed with this Power-of-Attorney, and request my mother to give me some money to be able to settle down in business, and in case my mother should not be willing to keep her promise to help us, to try to borrow some money on whatever will be coming to me in the future, or even sell part of my father's estate –  We were under the impression that one half of my father's estate was due me at the death of my mother, this belief was stuffed into my head by my mother and interested members of her family –  As never a settlement of my father's estate was made to me neither on the marriage of my mother with Louis Curdt, nor at the time of my marriage to Emile Petit, as should have been done according to the "Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri" — until the death of my mother I remained under these impressions and never knew that the whole of my fathers estate belonged to me.

Thus on the 10th of June 1885 I gave my husband above mentioned "Power-of-Attorney", and he left for Missouri.

What happened in Missouri while my husband was there is a dark chapter, for myself as well as for Emile Petit, my former husband –

Petit reached Missouri O.K., saw my mother who put him off for a few days, during which days Petit came in the hands of some friends of Louis Curdt and his wife Elizabeth Curdt.  These friends formed an iron wall around Petit who trusted them in everything they proposed or said.  They advanced him

2

——————

money for his daily expenses and kept him going, drinking and having a good time.  He never consulted a lawyer and allowed himself to be taken about like an automaton.

While this was going on I received from an agent of my mother, a prepared act for my signature before a public officer and a letter from my mother –  This document was written in English and there was not a single person in the Country of Dieuze, Lorraine, who could translate or explain it.  I, without instruction, having hardly ever been to school, did not understand anything of it, but for me my mother was a holy body, who surely would not and could not rob me.  In her letter she told me to sign this document in presence of witnesses and I signed it, because she told me in her letter that she could not give me any money except if I sign this document, and I signed it, and I remained under the impression that the document was some kind of acknowledgment of having received or our going to receive a certain amount of money, to help me out in Lorraine, money which would later be deducted from whatever should be coming to me – and I signed and returned the document to the address indicated, and wrote a few words to mother –

The document reached its destination all right and Emile Petit was given 3000 dollars and sent back to Lorraine –

Emile Petit, in a sworn statement, says that Emma's mother sent for him from France, but did not give him any information or instruction about any property –  He says also that the property was not sold.  He says textually, under oath and before witness David J. Kelly, a Notary Public, I believe, viz =

     " I did not sell anything, did not know Louis Curdt
     " to speak to, did not have any dealings with him,
     " that he threatened to kill me for my marriage
     " to Emma Schafer.  When I married Emma
     " Schafer Louis Courdt [sic] was in jail at the time.
     " Mrs. Curdt sent for me to get the money because
     " Emma Schaefer [sic] was afraid of being killed
     " by Louis Curdt.
          " Pete Bruno is the only one I know that could
     " testify this in the matter and probably can
     " give information, he resides at 1515, Villa
     " Ave., Wellston, Mo. # – – – – – – – – – – "

As far as I am concerned I never knew what actually happened in Missouri, between Emile Petit and my mother –  Petit came back with part of the money he received, telling me that was what my mother gave him to help us out and soon after bought a backery [sic] in Dieuze, Lorraine, a small town of about 5000 french speaking population in Lorraine.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

What an interesting situation:  Emma was married off to a man who spoke almost no English; she spoke no French and only a little German.  Obviously, the two of them being able to communicate was not high on her mother's list of priorities.  Emma points out more than once that she was not well educated, which was commented on in the typed history of her early life.  And she mentions the "Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri", which was quoted in the typed narrative.  I'm starting to wonder if perhaps Emma was the person who typed that.  This narrative is not dated, but Emma seems to have acquired some education since the events she writes about, as her writing for the most part has reasonable grammar and good spelling (relative to the time).

Whereas in the typed history we don't know who the writer was, in this narrative we are starting to hear from Emma herself about how her mother apparently swindled her out of the inheritance due to her from her father.  She isn't saying it directly, but she does seem to be dancing around the edges.

I kind of feel sorry for Emile Petit so far.  He seems to be a pawn on both sides, being told what to do and where to go.  His parents come off as a little harsh — threatening to send Emma away because she isn't coming up with money to open a bakery?  Maybe the only reason they thought the marriage was acceptable was because Emma was supposed to come with a dowry.

I had a little trouble finding Genestroff.  In French (or should I write "french", as Emma does?) it's Guénestroff and has been subsumed, with the community of Kerprich-lès-Dieuze, into Val-de-Bride (sorry for the French, but the English-language Wikipedia entry has practically no information), in the Moselle department of Lorraine.  Dieuze, the other town that Emma mentions, also has a seriously deficient entry in the English-language Wikipedia.  According to Google Maps, Val-de-Bride and Dieuze are less than 2 miles apart.

When I read Emma's comment that Lorraine was a French-speaking country but part of Germany since 1870, it reminded me of the J. K. Rowling episode of Who Do You Think You Are?, where Rowling learned that her Alsatian ancestor had become German after Germany took control of Alsace-Lorraine (Elsass-Lothringen, in German) in 1870, after the Franco-Prussian War.  Emile Petit's family was obviously caught in that also, but unlike Rowling's Schuch family, with a name like Petit, they appear to have had a French rather than German background.

Next week, the rest of Emma's narrative!

Treasure Chest Thursday: The History of Emma M. Schafer

I finally was able to make some time to start plowing through the documents I received when another Bay Area genealogist gave (read:  foisted off on) me a collection of materials (my "treasure chest") she had decided she was never going to be able to focus on.  The collection, which had been donated to a local genealogical society, apparently was begun by a woman who thought that someone had been murdered for an inheritance, way back in 1919.  There's no information on how she fell into the story to begin with, but she had done some research of her own to add to the original documents that were there.

The first thing I did was sort out all the documents to see who I'm dealing with.  As I mentioned previously, it's apparent that these items have changed hands a few times.  While I have made a note of how everything was grouped when I received it, there didn't seem to be much logic to it, and obviously related items were often nowhere near each other.  I therefore created my own groupings based on the individuals involved.  I've decided to work on one person at a time and go through the documents for each person in chronological order.  I figure by the time I work my way through the entire package, we might have an idea of what actually happened!

I'm starting with Emma Schafer, as everything seems to revolve around her.  The first document describes the beginning of her life.  Unfortunately, the first page does not appear to be in evidence, but pages 2 and 3 have survived.  The document is typed and the paper is at least somewhat aged, though I can't tell how old it is.  The paper is some type of bond with no watermark.  It was typed in triplicate, with the second and third copies being accomplished with carbon paper (does anyone besides me remember typing with that?).  There is no indication of who typed it or when.  My transcription follows:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

(2)

She was hardly ever sent to school but kept at home were [sic] she had to work all day long.  The poor, unlucky child became a little slave on her own property, a little unhappy drudge in the household.  She received neither education nor instruction, went around in dirty rags and later, when other children were born to her mother, she had to take care of them instead of going to school.  Three children were born to Curdt and his wife from the time of their marriage and 1883.

When little Emma Schafer arrived at between thirteen and fourteen years of age, LOUIS CURDT began to assault her whenever he could find her alone in the house, the outbuildings or in the fields, and went farther and farther, even to abuse and rape, using his superior strenght [sic] and his brutally satyric instincts.  The child complained to her mother who would then take her to a friend's house, a Mrs. Kraemer, and leave her there for a while, but needing her to take care of the children, and believing in the protestations of her husband that hereafter he would behave, she would take her home again, not because of her love for her but to use her as a drudge, a servant.  Thus Emma SCHAFER remained ignorant and uncultivated in the extreme.

It is during these times that Elizabeth Curdt, ably assisted by her husband, impressed upon the mind of little Emma, that one half of the property belonged to her,- the mother -, and that she has the use of the other half during her natural life.  In this manner Emma was informed that she could not get anything of her father's estate until after the death of her mother.

From this time on, there existed a Conspiracy to defraud and despoil EMMA M. SCHAFER of her property.

1883, OCTOBER 31st to NOVEMBER 1st, 1883

During the night of October 31st and November 1st, 1883, LOUIS CURDT entered the bed-room of Emma Schafer and compelled her, by threats and physical and brutish force, to submit to his filthy contact.  Emma called for help and her mother then called in a neighbor, a Mr. Becker, still living in Overland, Mo., who took EMMA to his house.  The following morning he took her to Clayton to have a complaint entered against Curdt, who was arrested the same day and later released under bonds.  From that time on until her marriage, which took place on the tenth day of November, that is only a few days after these happenings, Emma Schafer lived with the Kraemers, near Clayton.

Immediately after the arrest of CURDT, his friends, especially a saloon-keeper of Clayton, FORTIN, and others, tried to find the means to get EMMA out of the way, out of reach of the Court as a witness for the prosecution.  They were lucky enough to meet a young alien, from Lorraine, then Germany, who consented to marry the young girl and to take her out of the country, to Lorraine, in Europe, out of reach of the Court.  ELIZABETH CURDT paid all expenses and promised to help them to start a bakery business in Lorraine.  Thus Elizabeth Curdt disclosed her partnership in the CONSPIRACY, and stuck to her criminal husband against her first child.

(3)

NOVEMBER TENTH, 1883, Marriage of EMMA M. SCHAFER and EMILE PETIT, of Lorraine, Europe, were made man and wife in the presence of witnesses and the mother of the bride, who had to be present on account of the age of the bride, SIXTEEN YEARS & ELEVEN MONTHS.  The ceremony was performed by Judge Jeremiah RYAN, Justice of the Peace at CLAYTON, Mo..

During all these proceedings EMMA SCHAFER acted as an automaton, having nothing to say and nothing to do but obey her mother's wishes.  For years she was trained to obey and never to complain.  She was led before the Justice of the Peace as an inoffensive victiim would be led to the butcher-shop.

A few days later EMMA SCHAFER, now Mrs. PETIT, and her young husband were bundled up and sent to Europe, at Mrs. Elizabeth CURDT's expense, and this fine fellow Curdt was saved and the Penitentiary cheated out of a boarder and human justice baffled.

____________________

XXXXXXXXXX

**************

READ CAREFULLY " CHAPTER 34, Section 3529, (Final Settlement),

Revised Statutes of the States of Missouri:-

)     Guardians and Curators shall make final settlement of their Guardian-
( ship or curatorship upon cessation of their authority, whether by......
( ........................................... or the marriage of female Wards; and for the
( purpose of such settlement, such Guardian or Curator shall make a just
( and true exhibit of the account between himself and his ward, and file
( the same in the Court having juristiction thereof, and cause a copy of
( such exhibit, together with a written notice stating the day on which
( and the Court in which he will make such a settlement, to be delivered to
( his ward, or in case of the MARRIAGE OF A FEMALE WARD, to the ward
( and her husband,.........................................................................................

N. B. Nothing has been done concerning the obligations above mentioned.  There has been no settlement whatsoever from Guardian or Curator.

***************************************************************************

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Well!  How's that for an introduction to the situation?  Because I have glanced through the other documents, I can hypothesize that the missing page 1 might discuss Emma's parents' marriage, her birth, the death of her father, the disposition of her father's property, and her mother's subsequent second marriage to Louis Curdt.  Considering the final paragraph about guardians and curators, there might also have been mention of a guardianship.  From where we come in, however, it's a rather lurid tale.

No documents pertaining to the court complaint were in the collection I was given, but theoretically it would be possible to obtain copies of them from St. Louis County (the location of Clayton) or possibly the Missouri State Archives—unless, of course, the CONSPIRACY mentioned above took the time to destroy all paperwork associated with the case so as to cleanse the reputation of Louis Curdt.  I suppose that even if they had done that, court dockets should still show the complaint having been recorded.  A situation such as this probably was in the newspaper, also.  And there are several other individuals mentioned who could be researched to verify their existence in the area at the time.  So even though the story seems as though it could be overly dramatized, it can probably be checked for accuracy against documentation from the period.

They say the first step is the hardest.  More documents to come!