I think the issue here is just that >the landowner of that 1944 sighting can be read in two ways. I assume you meant the person who owned that land when it wa

I think the issue here is just that >the landowner of that 1944 sighting can be read in two ways. I assume you meant the person who owned that land when it was taken away, and that's how I read it. But it's not unreasonable to interpret it as the person who owned it at the time of the sighting.