What is the name abbreviated as Sd. in a 1750 Connecticut record? [closed]

Question

An entry in the New Haven Vital Records transcript reads:

Sam'll Son of S'd. Beecher was born Nov'r: 15 1750

(note: I've used an apostrophe to indicate that the next letter/s are superscripted as an abbreviation.)

If you have a subscription to AmericanAncestors: 

New Haven, CT: Vital Records, 1649-1850.(Online database: AmericanAncestors.org.New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2007), (Vital Records of New Haven, 1649-1850, Connecticut Society of the Order of the Founders and Patriots of America, Hartford, CT, 1917.), vol. 1, p. 353.

Hezekiah Beecher, b. 29 Jul 1755, also shows up as a son of this Sd. Beecher (the second line below Sam'll), yet his profile here on WikiTree says that his father is Isaac, following Jacobus, Families of Ancient New Haven, vol. 1, p. 170.

Is "Sd." actually an abbreviation for "Isaac" ?  It doesn't seem to be used as such elsewhere in this part of the transcript.

 

Comments

it does not make sense here, but I have seen the s'd used for step daughter

---

I just looked up for legal doucumets and it is also used for "said", that would make sense here

---

Thank you, Rodney.  Please see my reply to Mindy Silva's answer.  Except for the conflict in birth dates, translating the Sd. as "said" would make sense.

Answer 1

Hi Susan,

In my experience, S^d So-and-so stands for 'Said' ... usually used if they mention Isaac Beecher married May, then they would say John son of S^d Beecher. It's like us using a ditto mark now. I think because they wrote Isaac son of Isaac Beecher Ju^r, they did a 'ditto mark' for the other children. They are all issues of Isaac Jr (Isaac, Isaac, Samuel, Mabel, Hezekiah and Hannah).

Comments

Thank you, Mindy.

There's a problem with this solution, though, because the records read:

"Isaac ye Son of Isaac Beecher Ju'r was born Aug't : 18'th : 1757

"Isaac ye Son of Isaac Beecher Ju'r was born Nov'r 3'd : 1748

"Sam'll Son of S'd. Beecher was born Nov'r: 15 1750

. . . 

"Hannah ye Daughter of S'd. Beecher was born Oct'r 22'd 1757"

So, there is a conflict between the births of Isaac, born 18 Aug 1757, and Hannah, born 22 Oct 1757, if both were the children of Isaac Beecher, Jr.

Is there a solution for this?

---

Hello Susan.

A plausible explanation would be that the DOB of Isaac (18 Aug 1757) could not be right. There's Isaac Beecher born on 18 Aug 1747.

---

I agree with Ruben, the record was probably mis-transcribed. The first Isaac, born 1747, died. The second Isaac, born 1748 lived... this was common back then when one child died. They named the next son/daughter by the same name.

---

And, lo and behold!  A little more digging and I find (New Haven, CT: Vital Records, 1649-1850, v. 1, p. 440):

"Isaac ye Son of Isaac Beecher Ju'r. Dec'd Jan'y : 18 1748"

Now that I read p. 170 of Jacobus's Families of Ancient New Haven more closely, I see that he picked up on the 1747/1757 error for the first Isaac - as well as on a Nov/Dec problem for the second Isaac. Given the "ditto" entries, it looks like a rushed, non-OCD clerk in New Haven.

Thank you!

 

---

Well done Susan !

 

---

Congrats Susan! And thank you for Best Answer