1911 Census of Canada |
Line # | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
44 | Luk Ida | F | Fille | C | avril | 1893 | 18 | |||
44 | Luk Luke | M | Fils | C | oct. | 1895 | 15 | ||||
44 | Taily Bella | F | M?re | V | d?c. | 1847 | 73 | ||||
45 | Audy Jacques | M | Chef | M | juil. | 1882 | 28 | 01 | |||
45 | Audy Hermina | F | Epouse | M | jan. | 1882 | 28 | ||||
45 | Audy Fernande | F | Fille | C | d?c. | 1906 | 4 | ||||
45 | Audy Arthur | M | Fils | C | mars | 1908 | 3 | ||||
45 | Audy Simone | F | Fille | C | mars | 1911 | 3/12 | ||||
45 | Charland Carméliste | F | Logeur | C | jan. | 1884 | 27 | ||||
46 | Dalgleish Fred | M | Chef | M | mars | 1881 | 30 | ||||
46 | Dalgleish Brabear | F | Epouse | M | mai | 1879 | 32 | ||||
![]() |
46 | Donalson Lizie | F | Belle-sœur | C | juil. | 1880 | 30 | |||
46 | Donaldson James | M | Beau-fr?re | C | ao?t | 1885 | 25 | ||||
47 | Desroches Georges | M | Chef | M | juil. | 1879 | 31 | ||||
![]() |
47 | Desroches Délima | F | Epouse | M | sept. | 1879 | 31 | |||
47 | Desroches Jeanne | F | Fille | C | f?v. | 1904 | 7 | ||||
47 | Desroches Germaine | F | Fille | C | d?c. | 1905 | 5 | ||||
47 | Chevalier Marie | F | Belle-m?re [Mother-in-law] | V | mai | 1840 | 71 | ||||
47 | Chevalier Arthur | M | Beau-fr?re | C | ao?t | 1876 | 34 | ||||
47 | Garneau George | M | Logeur | C | f?v. | 1869 | 42 | ||||
47 | Desroches Victor | M | Logeur | C | mars | 1896 | 15 | ||||
48 | Bernier Hector | M | Chef | M | f?v. | 1866 | 45 | 01 | |||
48 | Bernier Alexina | F | Epouse | M | d?c. | 1869 | 41 | ||||
48 | Bernier Hector | M | Fils | C | f?v. | 1894 | 17 | ||||
48 | Bernier Eugène | M | Fils | C | juin | 1896 | 14 | ||||
48 | Bernier Alice | F | Fille | C | f?v. | 1892 | 19 | ||||
48 | Bernier Florida | F | Fille | C | d?c. | 1901 | 9 | ||||
48 | Bernier Jacques | M | Fils | C | f?v. | 1907 | 4 | ||||
48 | Masedel Louis | M | Beau-fr?re | M | ao?t | 1846 | 74 | ||||
48 | Masedel Mary | F | Sœur | M | ao?t | 1842 | 70 | ||||
49 | Tailor Gérome | M | Chef | M | sept. | 1880 | 30 | ||||
49 | Tailor Laura | F | Epouse | M | f?v. | 1891 | 20 | ||||
49 | Tailor Chesta | M | Fils | C | ao?t | 1902 | 8 | ||||
49 | Tailor Mary Ann | F | Fille | C | oct. | 1903 | 7 | ||||
49 | Tailor Harold | M | Fils | C | d?c. | 1904 | 6 | ||||
49 | Tailor Celestine | F | Fille | C | avril | 1906 | 5 | ||||
49 | Tailor Aubry | M | Fils | C | ao?t | 1908 | 2 | ||||
49 | Tailor Léona | F | Fille | C | sept. | 1909 | 1 | ||||
50 | Buscle George | M | Chef | M | f?v. | 1855 | 46 | ||||
50 | Buscle Mairra | F | Epouse | M | d?c. | 1856 | 44 | ||||
50 | Buscle Elénor | F | Fille | C | oct. | 1894 | 16 | ||||
50 | Buscle T. George | M | Fils | C | oct. | 1897 | 13 | ||||
50 | Buscle James | M | Fils | C | sept. | 1899 | 11 | ||||
51 | McGillivery Agnes | F | Chef | V | f?v. | 1878 | 33 | ||||
51 | McGillivery Willie | M | Fils | C | mai | 1897 | 14 | ||||
51 | McGillivery Gertie | F | Fille | C | ao?t | 1900 | 10 | ||||
51 | McGillivery Harry | M | Fils | C | f?v. | 1903 | 8 | ||||
51 | McGillivery Jhon | M | Fils | C | sept. | 1904 | 6 | ||||
51 | McDonald Duncan | M | Logeur | C | mai | 1876 | 35 | ||||
52 | Simmons Jessie | F | Chef | V | juil. | 1874 | 36 |
Line notes on this page:
Line 1: Continued from Page 5. (note added by: Aileen Sloane)
Suggested corrections on this page:
Line # | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Links | Actions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 | 46 | Donaldson | Lizie | F | Belle-sœur | C | juil. | 1880 | 30 | (corrected values) | |||
12 | 46 | Donalson | Lizie | F | Belle-sœur | C | juil. | 1880 | 30 | (current values) | |||
Guidelines direct the clearest spelling of surname governs entire family unit. In this case, husband on next line is Donaldson. (note added by: Aileen Sloane) | |||||||||||||
15 | 47 | Desroches | Déli? | F | Epouse | M | sept. | 1879 | 31 | (corrected values) | |||
15 | 47 | Desroches | Délima | F | Epouse | M | sept. | 1879 | 31 | (current values) | |||
As entered by enumerator. The letters are not clear enough for positive recognition. Suggest the ? as best alternative since we are required to transcribe "as is, as in". "Correct" transcriptions may not be used in place of original. I see [Déliers". (note added by: Aileen Sloane) |