Konečný → Konecny

Citation · C0838 · record

1910 United States Federal Census

Year: 1910; Census Place: Chicago Ward 29, Cook, Illinois; Roll: T624_274; Page: 5a; Enumeration District: 1269; FHL microfilm: 1374287

Weight of this evidence

Tier
record
Confidence
●●○○ normal
Review
AI-checked
Held at
Ancestry.com

Transcription and reasoning

research unreviewed

Validator (claude-sonnet-5-5, 2026-10-28): supports, confidence 4/4, tier record.
The image shows the 1910 census for Chicago Ward 29, ED 1269, Sheet 5A. The household of James Tauber, 34, with wife Francis 34 and sons Jerry 10 and James 8, matches the claim's family composition, place and year. The "Tanber" in the index is a transcription error. The only inference is that James stands for Václav, which is a standard anglicization and fits the age.
Matches: Header reads Illinois, Cook County, Chicago City, Ward 29, ED 1269, Sheet 5A, which matches the citation detail; Line 21: "Tauber, James", Head, M W, age 34, married 11 years, born Austria-Bohemia, immigrated 1901, Bohemian-speaking, carpenter in a car shop. Age 34 gives a birth year of about 1876, matching Václav (1876); Line 22: Francis, Wife, age 34, married 11 years, 2 children born and 2 living, matching the note "with Frances"; Line 23: Jerry, Son, age 10, born in Austria-Bohemia, and line 24: James, Son, age 8, born in Illinois, matching the note's children; Václav is commonly anglicized to James, and the indexing of the surname as "Tanber" is an obvious misreading of Tauber; Place Chicago, Cook, Illinois matches the claim, and the 1910 date matches the April 1910 enumeration
Limits: The census does not give the name Václav, so the identification with Václav Tauber rests on the James/Václav equivalence, the age and the family composition; Only the age is given, not a birth date, so it is consistent with 1876 but cannot confirm it; The street address is not legible in the household's location columns, so the residence is confirmed only at the city and ward level; The immigration year 1901 and the marriage length of 11 years are not part of the claim and are not checked against any other source here

What it supports