This is the 1910 census, showing the Mulvaneys living at 270 Van Brunt St. Julia and Patrick give their ages as 48 and 40, which means they have approximate birthdates of 1862 and 1870. Interestingly, in the column "number of years in present marriage" they give two different answers. How could Patrick have been married to Julia for 17 years, if Julia's only been married to Patrick for 16? That's one of my favorite things I've come across in my genealogical searching, because it seems to defy explanation. Whether they married 16 or 17 years before the 1910 census, though, it gives an approximate wedding date of 1893-4. Their kids are listed as James, Grace, Mary, Thos., Harold, and Vera. (Vera is presumably Veronica, don't you think?) William is, for some reason, not on this census, though he should be about 8 or 10 years old in 1910. Patrick's occupation is "Foreman" for a "machinist." James is a "clerk" in a "Railroad Office."
John Murphy, 21, and Thos. Murphy, 16, are listed as nephews. John Griffin told me that they were Julia's sister's sons who moved in with the Mulvaneys when their parents died. "There were also two older Murphy sisters. Annie married Jack Dowd, who was a NYC Policemen - we think he was possibly Chief of Detectives; they never had children. Annie's other sister was married to a man named KEENE, and they had a daughter, Margaret Keene, who moved in with Annie & her husband, when her parent's died while she was a young girl. Later she became an Ursuline Nun, teaching for years at Marymount. Later she was moved up to the Bronx. She died after 1990 from cancer and was in a convent in the Bronx." John Murphy is listed as a machinist at a "dry dock" or "day dock"? I'm having trouble reading the field. His brother Thomas is an office boy at a "[unintelligible] office."
Julia has given birth to 8 children, of whom 7 are still living. The 1900 census (soon to be posted) shows a boy named John, b. 1894. (However, that census also lists James as having been b. 1897, whereas later ages given put him closer to an 1894 birthdate.) John appears to have been a son who died young; he lived to at least 6, but appears not to have made it to 16. Betty and John also told me, though, of a son named Raymond who died as a toddler, but I have no information on him. One of those must be the 8th child who was born but no longer living in 1910.