Court case documents

Hello, Linda.  You’ve done quite well with your “struggle.” We just need to tinker a bit. When using online images of original documents, the basic thing to remember is this:

• You have two things to identify: (1) the original document; and (2) the website where you found it.
• Each of those is cited in its own layer.
• Details that identify one of these entities should not be put into the layer for the other entity.

It’s that last point that triggers the tinkering. 

Your draft citation (adding color to separate the layers) is this:

Hickman County, Kentucky, Circuit Court, "Court Records of Hickman County, Kentucky, 1822-1938," > Court records 1859 >  Case #33, The Commonwealth vs. St. John & Doughty; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-193L-5 : accessed 30 October 2023) > DGS 008685451 > images 482-577 of 711.

If we were to go to the Hickman County Courthouse and seek a set of files called “Court Records of Hickman County, Kentucky, 1822–1938,” we would not find such an entity.  You took those words from the label that the filmers created for their film. It’s not the name of the record set for the original documents at the courthouse.

Also, if we went to the courthouse that holds those files and asked for the case, providing the rest of the detail in that layer: “Court records 1859 > Case #33,”  we and they would have a problem because that case number was created by the filmers. As you have noted, there are multiple films for that year 1859, and each of those start with Case #1. Thus, there are multiple cases called Case #33 for the year 1859 in that record set.

In short:

• In the layer for citing the original documents, we identify it by what we see on the documents themselves.
• In the layer for citing the film and its provider, we report the identity given to it by the filmer/provider.

To which we might add: Oh, what a mess filmers can make when they “arrange” records for filming!

In the case at hand, image 482 show the ragged wrapper for the case file.

It states this: “No. 9 6 2, Commonwealth vs. St. John & Doughty, Murder.”  The case number was changed a couple of times before they settled on No. 2. No other document in the file shows the case number because that was assigned after the case was settled. However, we do not know what arrangement is used in the archive that holds the case files.  Having been dejacketed, straightened, and filmed, those documents may now be in file folders with some other arrangement, perhaps numbered or perhaps alphabetical by year.

The safest thing to do is to fall back on the basic pattern for citing any loose papers at a courthouse:

Jurisdiction that authored the record, Type of Case, Case no., Case Title, date.

The result would be this:

Hickman County, Kentucky, Circuit Court files, Case No."9 6 2" (1859), Commonwealth vs. St. John & Doughty; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-193L-5 : accessed 30 October 2023) > DGS 008685451 > images 482-577 of 711; the filmers labeled this file “Case No. 33” for that roll of film.

This pattern is for citing the whole file generically. However, if we take information from a specific page of that file, then we will want to cite the specific document—especially in a file that contains more than a hundred documents. For example:

Hickman County, Kentucky, Circuit Court files, Case No. "9 6 2" (1859), Commonwealth vs. St. John & Doughty, Summons to W. H. Richmond, 28 December 1857; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-F3Z2-193Z-2?i=482: accessed 30 October 2023) > DGS 008685451 > image 483 of 711; the filmers labeled this file “Case No. 33” for that roll of film.

You ask whether you need to include the year 1859. Yes. When a court case is cited, the year the case was settled is always cited in the first (full) reference note. That year is usually attached to the case number.  Then, when you cite each specific document, you cite the specific date for that document. As you’ll note in this example, the summons for W. H. Richmond was issued in 1857 although the case itself carries the date 1859.

You also state: “I know that I can find this record again because of the URL.”  We would like to think so. But URLs, even ARKs as in this case, do get changed.

On a more nitpicking point: Punctuation rules for citations do use the greater-than sign between elements when citing the path from a URL to a specific image. However, the greater-than sign is not used in the layer for citing original documents. They are traditionally cited with traditional punctuation.