Daniel and Persis Muzzy Family Records

The family of Daniel and Persis Haven has very confusing records.

Source:Belsey, Joanne Muzzy. Mussey, Muzzey, Muzzy Genealogy, p. 60, appears to have largely ignored the issues, presumably due to superficial research, and presents an incomplete solution based only on the birth records found in the published VRs. But other data, apparently not considered, show there are problems that involve the children Martha, Esther/Esther Green, Mary, Louisa, and an unnamed infant. It was necessary to consider all these children in arriving at a conclusion. Reference the Family page for links to the various pages.

The published VRs Source:Leicester, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End the Year 1849. Births are p. 65, Deaths are p. 268.

Winthrop Earle, b. 2 Jul 1807

William Riley, b. 25 Dec 1808

Martia Amanda, b. 12 May 1811, d. (as Martha A.) 28 Mar "[1836?]", a. 25.

Emily, b. 3 Apr 1813

George, b. 6 Jun 1815, d. (unnamed, by age at death) 9 Dec 1816, a. 1 y. 6 m.

Caroline, b. 15 Oct 1817

Esther Green, b. 18 Jan 1820

Esther Green, b. 18 Jan 1820 (listed twice in published records)

Esther, b. 26 Jan 1822 (Denny Record)

Persis, b. 28 May 1824 (Denny Record)

Daniel, b. 2 Jun 1826 (Denny Record), d. 31 Aug 1829, a. 3.

Louisa, (no birth record), d. 26 Sep "[1836?], a. 10

---, (no birth record), d. 8 Oct 1833, a. 2

Problem 1: Multiple Esthers

The original birth record here does record the birth of Esther Green Muzzy twice, but as both say the same thing, one simply appears to be a duplicate. There is also an additional birth record in 1822 that comes from the "Denny Record" (not found in town records or the town copy). Esther G. Muzzy married Elisha Perry in 1841, and her death record on 1 Nov 1878 record 68 gives her age as 58 y. 4 m. 5 d. This calculates to a birth about 27 Jun 1820. This unfortunately does match any of the birth dates we have, but suggests she was born in 1820, and that the 1822 birth is either mistranscribed or applied to the wrong child (possibly, Mary, see below).

Problem 2: Incomplete Death Records

There is a group of 3 death records that are very ambiguous (Martha, Louisa, and the unnamed infant). No gravestones have been located to provide any clues. The original record (copy) appears to be recording deaths in chronological order and has:

1833
Sep 27 [ --unrelated person-- ]
Oct 8 Daniel Muzy child died aged 2 years
March 28 Martha A Muzzy daughter of Daniel Muzzy 25 years
Sept 26 Louisa Muzzy daughter of Daniel Muzzy 10 years
1837 ...

Martha is born in 1811 so age 25 would be 1836, which appears to be why the VRs (p. 268) report "[1836?]". No conflicts arise from this other than disregarding the heading of 1833 on the basis of an age at death that could be wrong or mis-estimated.

The infant is assumed to have died in 1833 age 2, so born about 1831. This is what the record says, and using 1836 would be unattractive because it would extend what is already a long child-bearing span. So using 1833 seems utterly reasonable, however, it seems arbitrary to simply pick and choose values of convenience for the different records that all sit under the single heading of 1833.

Louisa is in the same handwriting as Martha (which differs from the handwriting of the infant's record), and is listed after Martha but before the heading for 1837, so apparently presumed to be 1836 as well, since the VRs likewise report it "[1836?]" But that implies a birth in 1826 which would conflict with the birth of brother Daniel, whose recorded birth in 1826 is confirmed by his death in 1829 at age 3. There is no indication that they are twins, so it is suspected that either 1836 isn't the correct year of death or 10 isn't the correct age at death.

Some sites use the death in 1833, i.e., as written, to propose a birth in 1823 for Louisa. Possibly the rejected 1822 birth above, nominally for "Esther", should have said Louisa? Given the estimate for Mary, born about 1822, this seems unlikely. One could also argue that the infant born in 1831 is five years after son Daniel, a large gap. If the age at death for Louisa is wrong, or simply mis-estimated, Louisa could easily fit into the family around 1828. This makes a reasonable family arrangement, but is not supported by actual evidence.

Note that Esther in 1820 is the last birth found in the town records (original or copy). The next three come from the "Denny Record" and the others are only implied by death records. Age at death is always ambiguous due to uncertainly whether the age is ordinal or cardinal.

So bottom line, our data is not very reliable due to lack of precision, meaning any arrangement will be based on guess and assumption. Since all three died prior to marrying, the answers do not carry much impact. To match the VRs as much as possible, so as to present a recognizable family, we will assume Martha and Louisa died in 1836. This will require assuming Louisa was born around 1828 to fit between Daniel and the unnamed infant. This is partly suggested since Louisa's birth was not recognizably recorded (i.e., as Louisa) by the Denny record, which seems to have recorded births up until Daniel.

More evidence would be needed to be conclusive.

More Evidence

The will of Daniel Muzzy mentions a daughter Mary Hixon. No birth or death record has been found for her. There is a marriage record for Mary Muzzy and William Hixon in 1840 in Leicester. They are found in the census with Mary's birth either 1822 or 1823. It might be possible that the Denny Record birth of 1822 was for Mary? Whether or not that is true, this appears to suggest that placing Louisa in 1828 was probably correct.

William A. Hixon might have remarried in 1867 in Rhode Island to Sophia Howe and then resided in Derry, New Hampshire (1870, 1880) until his death in 1882. This would imply Mary died between 1864 when her father wrote his will and 1867 when her husband remarried. But no actual record of Mary's death has been found.