Holding No. 18 in Berenbusch (1808-1810 & Sept. 1850)

A second Jobst Heinrch Krückeberg apparently is living in Evesen by 1808 different from the Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg living at no. 10 Berebusch.

The Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg of Nr. 10 Berenbusch is already a settled holder by 1798. We see this in the Rentkammer records of 1798-1800, when he petitions the Rentkammer to enlarge the yard and garden of no. 10 Berenbusch.

While he is only identified as "Col. Krückeberg N. 10 zu Berenbusch" (Colon Krückeberg no. 10 at Berenbusch) in the first document, his request, in the second document he is identified as Brinksitzers Jobst Heinr: Krückeberg N 10 zu Berenbusch.

We know that the occupation of Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg (17665-18222) is consistently given as Schuster / Schusteramtsmeister (shoemaker and guild official responsible for supervising or representing the local shoemakers).

He stands in an Anerbenrecht succession (single-heir inheritance of the holding) from his father Johann Heinrich Krückeberg, later styled Leibzüchter (a former holder living on Altenteil, supported for life by the holding) at the same Stätte. When he petitions the Rentkammer in 1798, he does so in his legal capacity as holder of the Stätte, seeking to enlarge the Hofraum und Garten of an existing, inherited holding—not as part of his craft activity.

The Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg of the 1808 Neubau (establishment of a new holding) petition, by contrast, is identified by the authorities as a Schneider (tailor), living as an Einlieger (a landless lodger without a holding), explicitly seeking to establish a new holding. He is described as gebürtig aus Evesen (originating from or socially rooted in the village of Evesen), and his father is said to have been an Ackervogt zur Arensburg (a locally appointed agrarian or field overseer attached to the Arensburg jurisdiction). His petition concerns acquiring and improving an undeveloped plot requiring substantial earthwork, because he does not already possess a Stätte.

These descriptions reflect different occupations, different legal statuses, different family contexts, and different stages of life, and therefore cannot refer to the same individual.

Even if Petzen is the correct parish for Evesen, the 1808 Neubau petition itself proves that this Jobst Heinrich cannot be the Colon of Nr. 10, because:

  • he explicitly states he does not yet have a Stätte (selbst anbauen),

  • whereas the Nr. 10 Jobst Heinrich demonstrably already held one by 1798.

That conclusion does not depend on where his baptism is recorded.

Bottom line

Yes, Petzen was the parish for Evesen. No, that does not guarantee every person described as “gebürtig aus Evesen” will appear in the Petzen registers.

And the identity question is already settled by the fact that this is a Neubau petition (Neubau appears repeated in the case file’s documents) and he identifies himself as an Einlieger, which in the procedural context means a person without a Stätte of his own at present, not merely a temporary lodger.