Were There Two Jobst Heinrichs by 1808

REWRITE:

In document 1, Jobst Heinrich K asks…​.TODO…​

In reply to Jobst Heinrich’s Petition, the Rentkammer directs the Bückeburg and Arensburg Ämter "report on the financial circumstances and on the personal qualities of the petitioner."

The report states:

  1. He and his wife were born in Evesen.

  2. His profession is a tailor whose business is in and around Berenbusch.

  3. He and his wife are known to have an excellent reputation and are hardworking.

  4. His father was an Ackervogt in the Arensburg area.

  5. His father may have given him an inheritance since he only needs a load of 200 Rtl.

What are the implications of the report?

Evidence for Two Jobst Heinrichs

The Rentkammer case file concerning "Die Stätte Nr. 18 zu Berenbusch" (The holding no. 18 in Berenbusch) TODO:footnote here does not use Neubau or Neubauer; however, its documents do:

  • The nla:146:doc2.adoc dated October 21, 1808, 808)* evaluates the petitioner’s eligibility for a Neubauereÿ That evaluation is required only for someone who does not yet hold a Stätte.

  • The petitioner is first described as Einlieger; later documents shift to Neubauer once permission is granted.

  • From Document 6 onward, the language becomes technical and settled: Anlage der Neubauereÿ, dem Neubauer … ausgewiesen, Neubauer-Colonie.

  • Document 11 functions statt Kaufbrief and explicitly transfers ownership to the Neubauer Krückeberg Nr. 18 and his heirs — i.e., it is the act that creates the holding.

In Rentkammer usage, this progression is decisive:

Einlieger → Antrag auf Neubau → Neubauer → Eigentümer einer neuen Stätte

A person who already held a Stätte (like the Colon Nr. 10) would never be processed this way; his case would be labeled and handled as Erweiterung or Ausweisung, as in the 1798 file.

So, to answer your underlying question directly:

  • No, the word Neubauer does not have to appear on the cover to define the case.

  • Yes, repeated use of Neubauereÿ / Neubauer / Neubauerung inside the file proves that the petitioner did not already hold a Stätte and was being installed into a new one.

  • This procedural fact alone excludes identity with Jobst Heinrich Krückeberg, Colon Nr. 10.

Your grep results are exactly what one expects in a true Neubau case file.

Futher Evidence

Here is why it fails, tightly and without digression.

A man who is already Colon of Nr. 10 cannot petition the Rentkammer as an Einlieger for a Neubau, regardless of where he happens to sleep during the week.

The obstacle is procedural, not residential.

In your 1808 file, Jobst Heinrich:

  • explicitly frames his situation as "`bisher als Einlieger … gewohnt`" in order to justify „jetzt mich selbst anzubauen“;

  • is evaluated by the Ämter as someone without a Stätte, including an assessment of whether he can even raise 200 Rthlr;

  • is processed through the full Neubau pipeline (Bericht → Ausweisung → Neubauer → Kaufbrief statt Kaufbrief).

A sitting Colon:

  • would never be assessed for eligibility to “build himself” a holding,

  • would never be described administratively as Einlieger in a Neubau proceeding,

  • and would never receive a Kaufbrief statt Kaufbrief creating ownership of a Stätte.

If a Colon wanted additional land, the procedure is Erweiterung (as in 1798). If he wanted a second holding, that required extraordinary justification and is never handled as Neubau, nor by self-description as Einlieger.

Living part-time in Evesen for work is irrelevant. Rentkammer language tracks legal status, not commuting patterns.

So the decisive point is this:

The 1808 Jobst Heinrich does not merely say he is an Einlieger; the Rentkammer treats him as one, all the way through to the creation of Nr. 18.

That treatment would have been impossible if he were already the Colon of Nr. 10.

Conclusion: Your hypothetical is socially plausible, but administratively impossible. The documents exclude it.