Archive for the ‘Prison’ Category

The Prison Site

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

In 1841, when Anne Larsdatter was imprisoned there, and gave birth to Ole, Oslo Prison (Kristiana Tukthus) was located at #33 Storgata (“main street”), less than a mile from the present-day Oslo Central train station. The front entrance may have looked much  as it does in this 1910 photo (courtesy digitalarkivet).

front doorAfter returning home, I got a link to oslobilder.no, “the official website for historic images from Oslo.” By searching the term “tukthuset,” (the prison) I got 49 photos, including the ones below:

south facadeThis shows the entire south facade facing Storgata, taken about 1900.

rear courtyardAnother 1910 photo shows the rear of the same building, with its attached wings, and a courtyard enclosed by a wooden fence.

courtyard2Another view of the courtyard in 1910. Note the extra-tall garret on the right, with no glass in the windows. One can almost imagine armed guards monitoring the prisoners, including Anne. In fact, one can see something inside the garret, but not clearly enough to tell if it is human forms.

The next two photos were taken in 1938, just before the prison was torn down.

Wall1Entrance to the prison yard on Bernt Ankers gate, a cross-street to Storgata. Unknown what street is on the right, or where this in relation to the previous photos.

Wall2Another part of the same stone wall, and a building not shown in the other photos.

Unfortunately for my efforts, the entire prison was demolished. On the site today stands a modern, 9-story office block. Exploring under a drizzling rain, here is what I found at Storgata 33.

Storgata 33About two blocks away, on the opposite side of Storgata (#46), stands a separate but related site called Prinds Kristian Augusts Minde. This site is partly preserved (although in poor condition), thanks to a historic monument designation in the 1990′s. This is my photo of the front gate and part of one of the buildings.

Minde gateBefore visiting, I thought that the prison was also a part of this compound, although it was outside the area currently under protection, having already been demolished. The Minde, as it is known, was originally a lavish Medieval estate. It was purchased by a philanthropic organization in the 1810′s, for use as a workhouse, poor hospital, and insane-asylum. In theory, destitute people could come voluntarily, but in reality, it was usually forced upon them.

Another building in the preservation area is an old factory, probably for textile manufacture.

FactoryI imagined that Anne Larsdatter may have been forced to toil in such a place, but it seems she probably had it even worse. I next visited the University of Oslo, which is celebrating a historic occasion of its own.

UniversityProfessor Hilde Sandvik of the Institute for History and Archaeology took time from her busy schedule to meet briefly with me, and referred me to other scholars whom I later contacted by email.

I learned that the prison, despite its close proximity, was always completely separate from the Minde, and the prisoners lived and worked under conditions worse than those of the workhouse inmates across the street. I leave you with one final photo of the prison’s interior, again from around 1910. I don’t know whether this was a living or working area. Either way, it must have been pretty grim.

Prison interiorMore details as I learn them. Keep in mind, though, that Anne and baby Ole not only survived this ordeal, but came to America a quarter-century later, and founded the family that today numbers in the thousands.

Another “Crime” Document

Monday, April 11th, 2011

From the Regional State Archive of Hamar, I received the earliest sentencing document in the case of great-great-grandma Anne Larsdatter. In a way, it is anticlimactic, in that most of the facts have already come out in later documents already uncovered. Still, there may be new clues here, and work is just beginning.

Sorenskriver

The document was issued by the Sorenskriver (magistrate) of south-Gudbrandsdal, Herman Møinichen, on 01 June 1840. For background, you can read the later appeals court documents, from Høyesterret and Stiftsoverret. With these, you will find transcriptions and translations. To view the “new” Sorenskriver document in its entirety, click here. I am hoping to get some help soon to search it for any new information.

The big questions are these: Why were the other two “thieves,” Kari Olsdatter and Ole Engebretsen, given lesser sentences? And more importantly, what was Anne’s status in the interim between this order, the  Stiftsoverret sentence two months later, and the Høyesterret after eight more months?

I am on the trail of one more document, also possibly at the Hamar regional archive. It is the earliest of all, dated 06 May 1840,  issued by Christians Amt (the county government), instructing the Sorenskriver to rule on the case. Stay tuned.

Grandma’s Fortitude

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

I am working on a “page” consolidating  several posts about my second great-grandmother, Anne Larsdatter. Unlike my earlier pages, I plan to do some editing and revisions this time. Here is some background that I plan to add:

Norway experienced a population explosion in the early 1800′s, especially among the poor, rural husmann class. This was due to several factors, and despite the fact that virtually all arable land was already being farmed. Smallpox vaccine (made mandatory for all children throughout Norway by 1810) greatly reduced infant and child (and adult) mortality. A factor often underrated was the widespread cultivation of potatoes. The potato proved easy to grow, highly productive, could be stored all winter, and provided a “fresh-vegetable” caliber of nutrition, superior to that of cereal grains. The bad news was, potatoes are even more vulnerable to crop failure than grains, which are hardly immune themselves. If both types of crop failed in a single season, starvation would loom.

This is exactly what happened in Gudbrandsdalen, not for a single season, but four years running: 1836, 37, 38, and 39. Note that this was several years prior to the Irish potato famine of 1845-46. By the winter of 1839-40 people were “grinding up birch bark and moss to make bread.” For Anne’s part, she and her husband had to feed not only themselves, but four or five growing girls. With that in mind, consider Anne’s arrest for thievery in March of 1840. This is a complete list of what she and two accomplices allegedly stole:

>Some wool and/or woolen garments, value about $2, recovered.
>A dress, value $0.50, recovered.
>”small things,” value $0.08,  recovered.
>Butter, value $0.30, “other food;” compensation waived.
>”Some foodstuffs,” old shirts, 7 yards of burlap, and some yarn, value $1.50, recovered.
>1/2 measure(?) of herring, 1 bucketful of potatoes, 5 turnips (or cabbages), and one piece of pork (bacon or ham?), value altogether $0.50, compensation waived.

It would take a Charles Dickens or a Victor Hugo to imagine that Anne received a sentence of eight months in the national prison, 150 miles from home, for such an offense. On the other hand, that her case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, albeit unsuccessfully, is itself remarkable.

As for Grandma Anne’s inner strength, she not only survived the prison, but gave birth to Grandpa Ole during the ordeal, at age forty. A quarter-century later, she survived a squalid 50-day ocean voyage to Canada, and an overland journey to Wisconsin, where she lived to the age of nearly ninety. That is what I call grit.

Paternity Uncertainty

Monday, April 5th, 2010

As I hinted in the previous post, there is a question that has nagged at me ever since I learned that Ole Larson’s birth on Dec. 10, 1841 took place in Oslo Prison. The two court documents I now have in my possession, and the prison records summarized for me by an Oslo archivist, have done nothing to clarify the issue. With “cooling time” of 170 years and the passing of three or more generations, I hope it is not too indelicate to broach this question.

Here is the timeline: Anne and her companions allegedly committed their burglaries in March-April of 1840. Presumably, they were arrested between then and June 1 of that year, when the local magistrate sentenced Anne to 8 months in prison, and her two companions to lesser terms. Anne appealed her sentence, and it was upheld by the mid-level court in Oslo, the Stiftsoverret, on August 17 of the same year. The case was further appealed to the Høyesterret, or supreme court, also in Oslo, who also upheld the sentence, but not until April 23, 1841, more than 8 months later. The same day, Anne entered Oslo prison.

The nagging question: Where was Anne, and what was her status, during those intervening months? More specifically, in the weeks just prior to the Høyesterret order? It seems quite a stretch to assume not only that she did not attend the Stiftsoverret trial, but also that she was at home, free on bail or something of the sort, right up until leaving for Oslo (a journey of at least two weeks), just in time for the final session in Høyesterret. But that is the only scenario in which it is plausible that her husband, Lars Paulsen, was the baby’s father. If her pregnancy was full-term, Ole must have been conceived around March 10. If the birth was at all premature, which seems likely under such harsh conditions, conception would have been even later.

The unpleasant (one might even say, ugly) alternate scenario would be that Anne was the victim of sexual assault by a soldier, guard, or other official while in custody. That kind of violence probably occurred back then at least as often as it does today.

As disturbing as the thought is on a personal level, it has very little impact on my genealogical work per se. Of my eight great-grandparents, I have by far the least ancestry information for Ole; least of all for his putative father, Lars Paulsen. In fact, if my deduction is correct about Lars’ father, Paul Sveinsen Flaade, the line ends right there. Even if I am incorrect, and previous work holds up, the pedigree peters out just a few generations earlier. This situation is due to a fire that destroyed all the church records of Fron parish prior to about 1800. What information we do have comes from individual farm records collected by a historian of the region, which are hit-and-miss, to put it mildly.

Whether or not the missing facts ever come to light, this has to qualify as the “grandmother” of all “skeletons in the closet.”

Coming up: recollections of Reatha’s early life, from her own lips, with new details on Grandpa Isaac Larson.

Anne’s Crimes

Saturday, April 3rd, 2010

It has been a good many months since cousin Myrna (tusen takk, fetter) retrieved for me a certain court document from the Oslo regional archive, namely the sentence of the Stiftsoverret (something like a mid-level appeals court) against our great-great-grandmother, Anne Larsdatter Skurdalshaugen, dated 17 August, 1840. It was an extremely tough nut to crack. Here is a typical example of the handwriting:Stiftoverret sampleTo view the complete document, click here.

I finally asked a professional genealogist in Sweden to transcribe the handwriting into typewritten characters. At first she accepted the job; then when she looked more closely at it, changed her mind, saying it was too difficult. But I twisted her arm, promising to accept whatever partial transcription she could render. The result was very incomplete, but with the help of my friend Berit to translate, and by hours of comparing with the Høyesterret (Supreme Court) document I already had, we were able to make some sense out of most of it. I will not be posting it in much detail, as it mostly reiterates (or I should say “pre-iterates”) the general outline of the other sentence. You can view that complete document in its printed form, with a good translation, here.

Both of these courts simply affirmed the sentence originally imposed on Anne by the magistrate (Sorenskriver) of southern Gudbrandsdal, which document I have not yet located, if it even survives.

The Stiftsoverret does provide a clue as to why Anne’s case came to the higher courts, while those of her accomplices, Kari Olsdatter and Ole Engebretsen, did not. It says that Anne was sentenced to eight months in prison, while Kari got six months, and Ole only three. Apparently, that is why Anne appealed her sentence.

There is a more complete list of the items taken by the three thieves in their two (possibly three) nights of burglary; all measurements are approximate. Dollar amounts are in Specie dollar, roughly equivalent to U.S. dollars of the period:

>Some wool and/or woolen garments, value about $2, recovered.
>A dress, value $0.50, recovered.
>”small things,” value $0.08,  recovered.
>Butter, value $0.30, “other food;” compensation waived.
>”Some foodstuffs,” old shirts, 7 yards of burlap, and some yarn, value $1.50, recovered.
>1/2 measure(?) of herring, 1 bucketful of potatoes, 5 turnips (or cabbages), and one piece of pork (bacon or ham?), value altogether $0.50, compensation waived.

Total value of all items stolen by the three thieves: around $5. Of course this was 1840; in today’s dollars, maybe $100. Still, not a great fortune, and all of it food or clothing for hungry and impoverished families. Mind you, this came on the heels of four consecutive years of crop failures. According to historian Einar Hovdhaugen, people were grinding up birch bark and moss to make bread. The question comes to mind: were Anne’s deeds “crimes” in the sense of anti-social behavior, or were they desperate, instinctual efforts toward her family’s survival?

But as to the question simmering in my mind all these months, one of genealogy, neither of these two court documents offer any clue whatsoever.

Next: Who’s your daddy?

More on Supreme Court sentence

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

I have finally coaxed some key details from the handwritten version of Anne Larsdatter’s sentence by the Høyesterret (Supreme Court). “Tusen Takk” (a thousand thanks) to Else Rustad of the Norwegian Genealogical Society for transcribing portions of the document into emailable Norwegian, and to Berit Carlsen of Bend for translating. It was no easy task, as you can see from this excerpt:
hicourthand2a

Below is a complete list of the items Anne was convicted of stealing, in cooperation with two other persons, Kari Olsdatter and Ole Engebretsen:

approximately 4-5 gallons of potatoes
some butter and flour
some cured herring
a bottle(?)
“a few items of clothing”
some linen thread

All the stolen items had been returned, or compensation made or in a few instances waived. Seems like pretty “small potatoes” :-) > to warrant an 8-month prison sentence from the Supreme Court.

Some other interesting details: Anne was ordered to pay the fee of  “Advocat” Andressen (apparently her defense attorney). The argument had been made that the other two persons should also have been imprisoned. The presiding judge wrote that there was merit to that argument, but also contrary factors,  and declined to lessen the punishment of the accused. I had assumed that the other thieves had simply been convicted in lower court and punished, but it does not appear so from this reading.

The judge commented on the accused’s “boldness” and “bad reputation,”(?) but cited as a mitigating factor her poverty(!) Altogether, four judges signed off on the sentence, one of whom explicitly stated that the two accomplices should have been brought in.

I will revise the existing web page on the sentence with a brief summary of these details.

Potato theft?

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

Still struggling with the handwritten court document. It will probably be after the holidays by the time I have something ready to publish, and it’s likely to be sketchy even then. Regarding just what Anne was accused of stealing, the printed document says only, “A good deal of foodstuffs, clothing, etc.,” nearly all of which was recovered after her arrest. In the cursive document, there is more detail, including the names of farms where the thefts took place, but not much about specific items stolen. So far, I have deciphered only one item, a word that appears twice, “Poteter,” translation, “potatoes.” Potatoes! Now that is poverty.  Remember Les Miserables (*not* the musical version)? At the beginning of the story, the protagonist has just spent 19 years in prison. His original crime (five-year sentence) was stealing bread for his starving family. For a sneak preview of the difficult document, see page1, page 2.

Inclement weather

Monday, December 15th, 2008

Right now here in Bend, Oegon, USA, it is 3 PM, and the temperature is 8 degrees F (- 12 C). Wind chill below zero. Snowing lightly. Very cold for our area, *extremely* cold for snow to be falling. But probably a typical winter day in Norway. Maybe like February 1842, when Anne was released from prison in Oslo with 2-month-old Ole, facing a 150-mile journey home to the north.

More thoughts on sentence

Friday, December 12th, 2008

Here’s a curious detail from the sentencing document lines 13-16: Allegedly, the defendant (our ancestor), while stealing from a “Stabur” (a food storage building of some kind), *locked the outside door* of a nearby dwelling that was occupied at the time.

While the motive for that is easy enough, how the heck did it work? What kind of dwelling door has an outside lock with which a malefactor (bad guy) could lock the occupants in???

One Supreme Court document posted

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

One of the two sentencing documents (the one in Gothic *printing*) is now fully up, with its translation, at Supreme Court Sentence. Have a look and please comment. The handwritten document is also up – page 1, page 2 – but is not linked to within the site itself. It still needs a lot of work to decipher the script, and then translate. It is tantalizing, because it has a lot of detail not included in the printed version.

There are some big questions nagging at me:

1) Was the criminal justice system so advanced as to allow multiple appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court, for a what surely amounts to a “petty crime,” and was Anne’s legal defense provided by the state? Surely she could not have afforded to pay for it herself.

2) Was Anne free on something like “bail” for almost 11 months during these appeals? Keep in mind that Ole must have been conceived about 1-2 months before the final sentence on April 23, 1841.