This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: PatriciaL70 Surnames: NEALIS/NEALOSS/NELIS/NELLIS/NIILES Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.canada.ontario.simcoe/2576/mb.ashx Message Board Post: My gr.grandparents had a baby girl born 25 July 1865 and baptized on 17 Sept 1865 at St. Paul's Catholic Church. The family lived in Mono. This baby is the daughter of John Nealis and Rebecca Smith. The surname Nealis is often spelled a variety of ways but this is how it appears on the church records. I am trying to determine the name of this child as their is a piece missing on the document of where her given name would be. Any information or suggestion on how my information could be obtained is welcome. Thank you, Patricia Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

A "bob" was a shilling, 20 shillings was a "quid" (pound).

Hi Jane 2 bob was 2 shillings. Elaine Georgetown Ontario Looking for McKinnons in Ontario ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Watt" <jwatt@ica.net> To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE Money > Seeing as you are so familiar with the old system of money in GB, > can you > tell me what a "bob" was, my grandmother used that currency from > 1900-1920 > before she emigrated to Canada. > Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Malcolm Moody <malcolm@archivecdbooks.ca> > To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:30 PM > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres,lumbermen > and > farmers > > >> Hi Paul, >> >> Since we seem to be in "silly season": I suspect that Napoleon had >> as much to do with the inauguration of the metric system as King >> Henry 8(?) had to do with the length of the standard Imperial yard. >> It just happened on his "watch." I will, however, stand up for the >> metric system (even though I am and old ****, and was bought up on >> the silly, and completely arbitrary, Imperial system of >> measurement. >> >> The exact measurement of each of the metric standards is now based >> on some quite esoteric physical constant but they also approximate >> to >> (and were originally derived from) a straightforward piece of >> physical mensuration available to all. The meter, for instance, is >> now based on the wavelength of a particular color of light, but in >> practical terms 100 km equates to about one degree of arc (4 >> minutes >> of rotation at the equator) at the earth's surface. The kilogram >> is >> defined by a lump of some rare metal but it is very close to the >> weight (actually mass, but lets not get into that) of a liter of >> pure >> water. These two units, together with the second as a length of >> time, are enough to derive all the other units of measurement we >> need. (Fortunately the second was defined by the astronomers way >> back and is related to the speed of rotation of the Earth so we >> don't >> have to deal with Imperial and Metric seconds!) Using multiples of >> ten means that we can define larger and smaller metric units by >> simply moving the decimal point, without the need to remember 1760 >> yards in a mile or 16 ounces in a pound, unless its' liquid when >> it's >> 20 ounces, except if you live in the US that is when its ...... >> and >> so on and so forth. >> >> When people in Canada decry the metric system i wonder how they >> would have got on with Imperial currency if it hadn't been phased >> out >> in the early 1800's. How about 240 cents to the dollar? How about >> 12 cents to the dime? And a halfcrown instead of a quarter? (NB: >> There was NO "crown"!) Still sound OK? Try working out an 8% and >> a >> 6% tax in your head using 240 cent dollars. >> >> My only problem with the metric system is that I was bought up on >> the Imperial system and when I look at a length it comes into my >> mind >> in feet and inches, not in meters and centimeters - or I think it's >> going to weigh so many pounds (not stones thank goodness) rather >> than >> kilos - so I'm constantly doing mental arithmetic to convert into >> the >> metric system to know how much I need, or how far I have to go. >> >> No, lets keep furlongs, poles, peks, barrels and stones and >> hundredweights (112 lb. - of course!) in the history books where >> they >> belong! >> >> And a Merry Christmas (Ooops! Sorry!) Happy Holiday to you all. >> :-) >> >> Malcolm >> >> Archive CD Books Canada Inc. >> President: Malcolm Moody >> PO Box 11 >> Manotick >> Ontario, K4M 1A2 >> Canada. >> (613) 692-2667 >> WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca >> >> On 23 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com >> wrote: >> >> > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:55:56 -0500 >> > From: "Paul and Ruth Robins" <robins0379@rogers.com> >> > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres, >> > lumbermen and >> > farmers >> > To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> >> > Message-ID: <200712221756.lBMHu0aA028749@mail.rootsweb.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> > >> > It was always my understanding, that it was NAPOLEON who >> > commissioned the >> > study which eventually became the metric standard. The metre >> > became >> > 1 / >> > what-ever of the distance between the Equator, and the North >> > Pole. >> > >> > I also understand that is why The BRITISH WORLD got >> > together, and >> > THUMPED him :-) >> > >> > Pierre What's-his-face finessed Canada into the Metric system >> > during his >> > Hay-day !!!! >> > >> > I hope that they are using IMPERIAL MEASURE in his >> > corner of >> > Eternity !!!!!! >> > >> > Comprennez-vous ? >> > >> > Paul Robins >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Have you tried checking the 1871 census in the area where the baptism was found? This little girl should be about 6 years old. Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: <gc-gateway@rootsweb.com> To: <CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 4:14 PM Subject: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] YEARS AVAILABLE FOR ONLINE CENSUS RECORDS > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Author: PatriciaL70 > Surnames: NEALIS/NEALOSS/NELIS/NELLIS/NIILES > Classification: queries > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.canada.ontario.simcoe/2576/mb. ashx > > Message Board Post: > > My gr.grandparents had a baby girl born 25 July 1865 and baptized on 17 Sept 1865 at St. Paul's Catholic Church. The family lived in Mono. This baby is the daughter of John Nealis and Rebecca Smith. The surname Nealis is often spelled a variety of ways but this is how it appears on the church records. > > I am trying to determine the name of this child as their is a piece missing on the document of where her given name would be. > > Any information or suggestion on how my information could be obtained is welcome. > > Thank you, Patricia > > Important Note: > The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks very much Doreen, what a fun site! Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year to you all. Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: Conlin <conlin2004@hotmail.com> To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE Money > > > Merry Christmas Jane > > I found this site which may be of interest to you. It is an "English-to-American" dictionary and explains. You'll find your bob in there. > > http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html > > > Happy Christmas to all, > > Doreen

Seeing as you are so familiar with the old system of money in GB, can you tell me what a "bob" was, my grandmother used that currency from 1900-1920 before she emigrated to Canada. Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: Malcolm Moody <malcolm@archivecdbooks.ca> To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres,lumbermen and farmers > Hi Paul, > > Since we seem to be in "silly season": I suspect that Napoleon had > as much to do with the inauguration of the metric system as King > Henry 8(?) had to do with the length of the standard Imperial yard. > It just happened on his "watch." I will, however, stand up for the > metric system (even though I am and old ****, and was bought up on > the silly, and completely arbitrary, Imperial system of measurement. > > The exact measurement of each of the metric standards is now based > on some quite esoteric physical constant but they also approximate to > (and were originally derived from) a straightforward piece of > physical mensuration available to all. The meter, for instance, is > now based on the wavelength of a particular color of light, but in > practical terms 100 km equates to about one degree of arc (4 minutes > of rotation at the equator) at the earth's surface. The kilogram is > defined by a lump of some rare metal but it is very close to the > weight (actually mass, but lets not get into that) of a liter of pure > water. These two units, together with the second as a length of > time, are enough to derive all the other units of measurement we > need. (Fortunately the second was defined by the astronomers way > back and is related to the speed of rotation of the Earth so we don't > have to deal with Imperial and Metric seconds!) Using multiples of > ten means that we can define larger and smaller metric units by > simply moving the decimal point, without the need to remember 1760 > yards in a mile or 16 ounces in a pound, unless its' liquid when it's > 20 ounces, except if you live in the US that is when its ...... and > so on and so forth. > > When people in Canada decry the metric system i wonder how they > would have got on with Imperial currency if it hadn't been phased out > in the early 1800's. How about 240 cents to the dollar? How about > 12 cents to the dime? And a halfcrown instead of a quarter? (NB: > There was NO "crown"!) Still sound OK? Try working out an 8% and a > 6% tax in your head using 240 cent dollars. > > My only problem with the metric system is that I was bought up on > the Imperial system and when I look at a length it comes into my mind > in feet and inches, not in meters and centimeters - or I think it's > going to weigh so many pounds (not stones thank goodness) rather than > kilos - so I'm constantly doing mental arithmetic to convert into the > metric system to know how much I need, or how far I have to go. > > No, lets keep furlongs, poles, peks, barrels and stones and > hundredweights (112 lb. - of course!) in the history books where they > belong! > > And a Merry Christmas (Ooops! Sorry!) Happy Holiday to you all. :-) > > Malcolm > > Archive CD Books Canada Inc. > President: Malcolm Moody > PO Box 11 > Manotick > Ontario, K4M 1A2 > Canada. > (613) 692-2667 > WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca > > On 23 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:55:56 -0500 > > From: "Paul and Ruth Robins" <robins0379@rogers.com> > > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres, lumbermen and > > farmers > > To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> > > Message-ID: <200712221756.lBMHu0aA028749@mail.rootsweb.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > It was always my understanding, that it was NAPOLEON who > > commissioned the > > study which eventually became the metric standard. The metre became > > 1 / > > what-ever of the distance between the Equator, and the North Pole. > > > > I also understand that is why The BRITISH WORLD got > > together, and > > THUMPED him :-) > > > > Pierre What's-his-face finessed Canada into the Metric system > > during his > > Hay-day !!!! > > > > I hope that they are using IMPERIAL MEASURE in his corner of > > Eternity !!!!!! > > > > Comprennez-vous ? > > > > Paul Robins > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Paul, Since we seem to be in "silly season": I suspect that Napoleon had as much to do with the inauguration of the metric system as King Henry 8(?) had to do with the length of the standard Imperial yard. It just happened on his "watch." I will, however, stand up for the metric system (even though I am and old ****, and was bought up on the silly, and completely arbitrary, Imperial system of measurement. The exact measurement of each of the metric standards is now based on some quite esoteric physical constant but they also approximate to (and were originally derived from) a straightforward piece of physical mensuration available to all. The meter, for instance, is now based on the wavelength of a particular color of light, but in practical terms 100 km equates to about one degree of arc (4 minutes of rotation at the equator) at the earth's surface. The kilogram is defined by a lump of some rare metal but it is very close to the weight (actually mass, but lets not get into that) of a liter of pure water. These two units, together with the second as a length of time, are enough to derive all the other units of measurement we need. (Fortunately the second was defined by the astronomers way back and is related to the speed of rotation of the Earth so we don't have to deal with Imperial and Metric seconds!) Using multiples of ten means that we can define larger and smaller metric units by simply moving the decimal point, without the need to remember 1760 yards in a mile or 16 ounces in a pound, unless its' liquid when it's 20 ounces, except if you live in the US that is when its ...... and so on and so forth. When people in Canada decry the metric system i wonder how they would have got on with Imperial currency if it hadn't been phased out in the early 1800's. How about 240 cents to the dollar? How about 12 cents to the dime? And a halfcrown instead of a quarter? (NB: There was NO "crown"!) Still sound OK? Try working out an 8% and a 6% tax in your head using 240 cent dollars. My only problem with the metric system is that I was bought up on the Imperial system and when I look at a length it comes into my mind in feet and inches, not in meters and centimeters - or I think it's going to weigh so many pounds (not stones thank goodness) rather than kilos - so I'm constantly doing mental arithmetic to convert into the metric system to know how much I need, or how far I have to go. No, lets keep furlongs, poles, peks, barrels and stones and hundredweights (112 lb. - of course!) in the history books where they belong! And a Merry Christmas (Ooops! Sorry!) Happy Holiday to you all. :-) Malcolm Archive CD Books Canada Inc. President: Malcolm Moody PO Box 11 Manotick Ontario, K4M 1A2 Canada. (613) 692-2667 WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca On 23 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:55:56 -0500 > From: "Paul and Ruth Robins" <robins0379@rogers.com> > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres, lumbermen and > farmers > To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <200712221756.lBMHu0aA028749@mail.rootsweb.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > It was always my understanding, that it was NAPOLEON who > commissioned the > study which eventually became the metric standard. The metre became > 1 / > what-ever of the distance between the Equator, and the North Pole. > > I also understand that is why The BRITISH WORLD got > together, and > THUMPED him :-) > > Pierre What's-his-face finessed Canada into the Metric system > during his > Hay-day !!!! > > I hope that they are using IMPERIAL MEASURE in his corner of > Eternity !!!!!! > > Comprennez-vous ? > > Paul Robins >

Heh--what he said! Tracy Walker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Moody" <malcolm@archivecdbooks.ca> To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres, lumbermen and farmers > Hi Paul, > > Since we seem to be in "silly season": I suspect that Napoleon had > as much to do with the inauguration of the metric system as King > Henry 8(?) had to do with the length of the standard Imperial yard. > It just happened on his "watch." I will, however, stand up for the > metric system (even though I am and old ****, and was bought up on > the silly, and completely arbitrary, Imperial system of measurement. > > The exact measurement of each of the metric standards is now based > on some quite esoteric physical constant but they also approximate to > (and were originally derived from) a straightforward piece of > physical mensuration available to all. The meter, for instance, is > now based on the wavelength of a particular color of light, but in > practical terms 100 km equates to about one degree of arc (4 minutes > of rotation at the equator) at the earth's surface. The kilogram is > defined by a lump of some rare metal but it is very close to the > weight (actually mass, but lets not get into that) of a liter of pure > water. These two units, together with the second as a length of > time, are enough to derive all the other units of measurement we > need. (Fortunately the second was defined by the astronomers way > back and is related to the speed of rotation of the Earth so we don't > have to deal with Imperial and Metric seconds!) Using multiples of > ten means that we can define larger and smaller metric units by > simply moving the decimal point, without the need to remember 1760 > yards in a mile or 16 ounces in a pound, unless its' liquid when it's > 20 ounces, except if you live in the US that is when its ...... and > so on and so forth. > > When people in Canada decry the metric system i wonder how they > would have got on with Imperial currency if it hadn't been phased out > in the early 1800's. How about 240 cents to the dollar? How about > 12 cents to the dime? And a halfcrown instead of a quarter? (NB: > There was NO "crown"!) Still sound OK? Try working out an 8% and a > 6% tax in your head using 240 cent dollars. > > My only problem with the metric system is that I was bought up on > the Imperial system and when I look at a length it comes into my mind > in feet and inches, not in meters and centimeters - or I think it's > going to weigh so many pounds (not stones thank goodness) rather than > kilos - so I'm constantly doing mental arithmetic to convert into the > metric system to know how much I need, or how far I have to go. > > No, lets keep furlongs, poles, peks, barrels and stones and > hundredweights (112 lb. - of course!) in the history books where they > belong! > > And a Merry Christmas (Ooops! Sorry!) Happy Holiday to you all. :-) > > Malcolm > > Archive CD Books Canada Inc. > President: Malcolm Moody > PO Box 11 > Manotick > Ontario, K4M 1A2 > Canada. > (613) 692-2667 > WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca > > On 23 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:55:56 -0500 > > From: "Paul and Ruth Robins" <robins0379@rogers.com> > > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres, lumbermen and > > farmers > > To: <can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com> > > Message-ID: <200712221756.lBMHu0aA028749@mail.rootsweb.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > It was always my understanding, that it was NAPOLEON who > > commissioned the > > study which eventually became the metric standard. The metre became > > 1 / > > what-ever of the distance between the Equator, and the North Pole. > > > > I also understand that is why The BRITISH WORLD got > > together, and > > THUMPED him :-) > > > > Pierre What's-his-face finessed Canada into the Metric system > > during his > > Hay-day !!!! > > > > I hope that they are using IMPERIAL MEASURE in his corner of > > Eternity !!!!!! > > > > Comprennez-vous ? > > > > Paul Robins > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Merry Christmas Jane I found this site which may be of interest to you. It is an "English-to-American" dictionary and explains. You'll find your bob in there. http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html Happy Christmas to all, Doreen ========= > From: jwatt@ica.net > To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:00:14 -0500 > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE Money > > Seeing as you are so familiar with the old system of money in GB, can you > tell me what a "bob" was, my grandmother used that currency from 1900-1920 > before she emigrated to Canada. > Jane in Cooksville (Mississauga) Ontario, Canada > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Malcolm Moody > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:30 PM > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres,lumbermen and > farmers > > >> Hi Paul, >> >> Since we seem to be in "silly season": I suspect that Napoleon had >> as much to do with the inauguration of the metric system as King >> Henry 8(?) had to do with the length of the standard Imperial yard. >> It just happened on his "watch." I will, however, stand up for the >> metric system (even though I am and old ****, and was bought up on >> the silly, and completely arbitrary, Imperial system of measurement. >> >> The exact measurement of each of the metric standards is now based >> on some quite esoteric physical constant but they also approximate to >> (and were originally derived from) a straightforward piece of >> physical mensuration available to all. The meter, for instance, is >> now based on the wavelength of a particular color of light, but in >> practical terms 100 km equates to about one degree of arc (4 minutes >> of rotation at the equator) at the earth's surface. The kilogram is >> defined by a lump of some rare metal but it is very close to the >> weight (actually mass, but lets not get into that) of a liter of pure >> water. These two units, together with the second as a length of >> time, are enough to derive all the other units of measurement we >> need. (Fortunately the second was defined by the astronomers way >> back and is related to the speed of rotation of the Earth so we don't >> have to deal with Imperial and Metric seconds!) Using multiples of >> ten means that we can define larger and smaller metric units by >> simply moving the decimal point, without the need to remember 1760 >> yards in a mile or 16 ounces in a pound, unless its' liquid when it's >> 20 ounces, except if you live in the US that is when its ...... and >> so on and so forth. >> >> When people in Canada decry the metric system i wonder how they >> would have got on with Imperial currency if it hadn't been phased out >> in the early 1800's. How about 240 cents to the dollar? How about >> 12 cents to the dime? And a halfcrown instead of a quarter? (NB: >> There was NO "crown"!) Still sound OK? Try working out an 8% and a >> 6% tax in your head using 240 cent dollars. >> >> My only problem with the metric system is that I was bought up on >> the Imperial system and when I look at a length it comes into my mind >> in feet and inches, not in meters and centimeters - or I think it's >> going to weigh so many pounds (not stones thank goodness) rather than >> kilos - so I'm constantly doing mental arithmetic to convert into the >> metric system to know how much I need, or how far I have to go. >> >> No, lets keep furlongs, poles, peks, barrels and stones and >> hundredweights (112 lb. - of course!) in the history books where they >> belong! >> >> And a Merry Christmas (Ooops! Sorry!) Happy Holiday to you all. :-) >> >> Malcolm >> >> Archive CD Books Canada Inc. >> President: Malcolm Moody >> PO Box 11 >> Manotick >> Ontario, K4M 1A2 >> Canada. >> (613) 692-2667 >> WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca >> >> On 23 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com wrote: >> >>> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:55:56 -0500 >>> From: "Paul and Ruth Robins" >>> Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres, lumbermen and >>> farmers >>> To: >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> It was always my understanding, that it was NAPOLEON who >>> commissioned the >>> study which eventually became the metric standard. The metre became >>> 1 / >>> what-ever of the distance between the Equator, and the North Pole. >>> >>> I also understand that is why The BRITISH WORLD got >>> together, and >>> THUMPED him :-) >>> >>> Pierre What's-his-face finessed Canada into the Metric system >>> during his >>> Hay-day !!!! >>> >>> I hope that they are using IMPERIAL MEASURE in his corner of >>> Eternity !!!!!! >>> >>> Comprennez-vous ? >>> >>> Paul Robins >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Read what Santa`s been up to! For all the latest, visit asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com! http://asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com/

> so.. who came up with metric first? Separating out Ontario's land into counties, townships, concessions and lots was started by Governor Simcoe's men between 1793 and 1798. The metric system was introduced in France after the Revolution in 1789. Given a war between France and the rest of Europe, language differences, and distances over which communication had to travel, .... it's amazing, n'est-ce pas? /cheers Pat -----Original Message----- From: can-ont-simcoe-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:can-ont-simcoe-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Don King Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:11 PM To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres,lumbermen and farmers Just one piece more about chains. They were carried around in a box by the lowly surveyor's assistant. The box was wide enough to hold a link. The links were carefully stacked into the box one along side the next. The box was long enough to hold 10 links, which then made one 'perch' in the box. The chain continued to fold into the box perch by perch. The box was tall enuff to hold 10 perches. Thus one hundred links per chain, or 10 perchs per chain. An acre can be one chain wide by 10 chains long. (or 2 x 5 or whatever). Doesn't this sound 'metric'? Well 100 chains = 1.25 miles = 2000 meters. so.. who came up with metric first? In Ontario farms were laid out 10 lots per 1000 acres. (metric/) In the York region these 1000 acres were 100 chains by 100 chains (ie 2 km along the concession and 2 km from the baseline to the 5th sideroad, etc) In Peel they were laid out 150 chains (3 km) from baseline to 5th side road and 66 chains (1.33 km) along the concession. In others they might be 200 chains by 50 chains. In Toronto (Old York) the concession roads parallel the lake shore (Queen, St.Clair, Eglinton) and the side roads ran north/south. These were Bathurst (5th sideroad W of Yonge St), Dufferin (10th), Keele (15th), and Jane (20th). Eglinton was the baseline for York Township. Lawrence was the 5th line N of Eglinton, Wilson (10th) Shepherd (15th) Finch (20th). Steeles is the baseline for King Township. This explains why there is a jog in the road at Eglinton as you moved into York twp which was surveyed differently at a different time. Since Magnetic North has been drifting, this may explain why Keele north of Eglinton is sloped eastward relative to its direction south of Eglinton ???. (I don't quite believe this statement) Enuff? Don ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Joyeux Noel a vous aussi. How beautiful (beau) that we live where people (peuple) can learn the subtelties (nuances) of another language (langue). Doreen ============== > From: robins0379@rogers.com > To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com > Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:55:56 -0500 > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres, lumbermen and farmers > > It was always my understanding, that it was NAPOLEON who commissioned the > study which eventually became the metric standard. The metre became 1 / > what-ever of the distance between the Equator, and the North Pole. > > I also understand that is why The BRITISH WORLD got together, and > THUMPED him :-) > > Pierre What's-his-face finessed Canada into the Metric system during his > Hay-day !!!! > > I hope that they are using IMPERIAL MEASURE in his corner of > Eternity !!!!!! > > Comprennez-vous ? > > Paul Robins > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: can-ont-simcoe-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:can-ont-simcoe-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Pat Jeffs > Sent: December-22-07 9:59 AM > To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres,lumbermen and > farmers > > > >> so.. who came up with metric first? > > > > Separating out Ontario's land into counties, townships, concessions and lots > > was started by Governor Simcoe's men between 1793 and 1798. The metric > > system was introduced in France after the Revolution in 1789. Given a war > > between France and the rest of Europe, language differences, and distances > > over which communication had to travel, .... it's amazing, n'est-ce pas? > > > > /cheers > > > > Pat > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Read what Santa`s been up to! For all the latest, visit asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com! http://asksantaclaus.spaces.live.com/

It was always my understanding, that it was NAPOLEON who commissioned the study which eventually became the metric standard. The metre became 1 / what-ever of the distance between the Equator, and the North Pole. I also understand that is why The BRITISH WORLD got together, and THUMPED him :-) Pierre What's-his-face finessed Canada into the Metric system during his Hay-day !!!! I hope that they are using IMPERIAL MEASURE in his corner of Eternity !!!!!! Comprennez-vous ? Paul Robins -----Original Message----- From: can-ont-simcoe-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:can-ont-simcoe-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Pat Jeffs Sent: December-22-07 9:59 AM To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres,lumbermen and farmers > so.. who came up with metric first? Separating out Ontario's land into counties, townships, concessions and lots was started by Governor Simcoe's men between 1793 and 1798. The metric system was introduced in France after the Revolution in 1789. Given a war between France and the rest of Europe, language differences, and distances over which communication had to travel, .... it's amazing, n'est-ce pas? /cheers Pat

Just one piece more about chains. They were carried around in a box by the lowly surveyor's assistant. The box was wide enough to hold a link. The links were carefully stacked into the box one along side the next. The box was long enough to hold 10 links, which then made one 'perch' in the box. The chain continued to fold into the box perch by perch. The box was tall enuff to hold 10 perches. Thus one hundred links per chain, or 10 perchs per chain. An acre can be one chain wide by 10 chains long. (or 2 x 5 or whatever). Doesn't this sound 'metric'? Well 100 chains = 1.25 miles = 2000 meters. so.. who came up with metric first? In Ontario farms were laid out 10 lots per 1000 acres. (metric/) In the York region these 1000 acres were 100 chains by 100 chains (ie 2 km along the concession and 2 km from the baseline to the 5th sideroad, etc) In Peel they were laid out 150 chains (3 km) from baseline to 5th side road and 66 chains (1.33 km) along the concession. In others they might be 200 chains by 50 chains. In Toronto (Old York) the concession roads parallel the lake shore (Queen, St.Clair, Eglinton) and the side roads ran north/south. These were Bathurst (5th sideroad W of Yonge St), Dufferin (10th), Keele (15th), and Jane (20th). Eglinton was the baseline for York Township. Lawrence was the 5th line N of Eglinton, Wilson (10th) Shepherd (15th) Finch (20th). Steeles is the baseline for King Township. This explains why there is a jog in the road at Eglinton as you moved into York twp which was surveyed differently at a different time. Since Magnetic North has been drifting, this may explain why Keele north of Eglinton is sloped eastward relative to its direction south of Eglinton ???. (I don't quite believe this statement) Enuff? Don

I did not have a surveyor in the family, but there were lots of lumbermen and farmers who had a few chains that were used for various jobs as they did their jobs. It would have been a job to drag those long heavy, chains. I guess that is what made the men strong and healthy. On Fri 21/12/07 11:08 AM , Malcolm Moody sent: Hi Deb, Just a couple of trivial observations to add to the excellent information you have been given: Perhaps this is obvious but just in case it wasn't; the "chain" and "link" measurements were quite literally that. One of the most important pieces of equipment a surveyor would take with him was his surveyor's chain which consisted of (I believe) 100 links (or it could have been 144.) The ones I have actually seen are a bit funny looking for a chain as each link is made up of a piece of fairly stiff wire or rod (1/8" to 1/4" in diameter) with a loop formed on each end. These interlink to give you the exact measurements already described. It is / was a very practical tool as it could be stretched out over the ground (or even through a pond or snow bank) without any fear of damage and then recovered by simply hauling it back in from one end. A tad on the heavy side perhaps but the old surveyors need equipment they could trust to survive! I said "is / was" earlier because I have seen a surveyor's chain being used fairly recently - well - within the last 10 years lets say. My personal favorite of this old system of measure is the "rod, pole or perch" although it has always been a mystery to me: a) why it would have three alternate names and b) why it was named such when it would seemingly be completely impractical to try and use a 5 1/2 meter long measuring stick! Perhaps one of your experts has an explanation for that one? Re, the comment about the "post" in the corner of the lot. Most surveys of land, as Robert so ably described, are based on the location of one "corner" of the lot relative to some larger plan. At that location the surveyor drives a stake into the round, primarily so he can always find his reference point, but also so that subsequent surveys don't need to go through the process of establishing the location on the larger plan - if they can find the stake. If you look at the survey plans of your property you will find reference to a single point and usually there is a metal spike in the ground at that point. This stake is also the origin of the phrase "staking a claim" but that's a whole different discussion. There, more useless information to add to the compost heap. :-) Malcolm Archive CD Books Canada Inc. President: Malcolm Moody PO Box 11 Manotick Ontario, K4M 1A2 Canada. (613) 692-2667 WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca On 21 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com [1] wrote: > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:07:04 +0000 > From: "Deborah Crawford" > Subject: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres - oh my > To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com [3] > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > Good morning one & all. A question to any budding or current land > surveyor > experts......... > > I'm in the midst of transcribing conveyancing instructions from a > ledger > housed in the archives at the Penetanguishene Centennial Museum. This > ledger of mortgages, lease agreements, chattel loans, wills, etc > commences > in 1905 to ? (I haven't cheated and peeked at the end of the book > yet!). > One oddity I am encountering has me curious and I thought I'd see > if any of > our listers can explain this - the land descriptions are very > detailed, but > - in land descriptions I see the terms, which I have heard before, > of - > chains, measures, links, feet, yards, rods and acres - all in the same > paragraph or on the same page. It's not a matter of it being > entered by a > different author - these reports were all entered by W.H. HEWSON. > I was > just curious to know if there was any sort of standard which > determined when > various terms were used, i.e. chains, links, etc. Or was it > merely a > matter of Mr. Hewson writing down descriptions perhaps based on > previous > descriptions, or just writing whatever his little heart desired. Any > opinions? Methinks Mr. Hewson just did this, knowing that 100 > years hence > I'd be puzzled over the same...........No? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com [5] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Links: ------ [1] mailto:can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com [2] mailto:orkney5@sympatico.ca [3] mailto:can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com [4] mailto:BAY111-F30EDFAF667BE47733F9E8C805D0@phx.gbl [5] mailto:CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: menkyo01 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.canada.ontario.simcoe/2463.4/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I have Josephs will.It lists his family.Albert,Robt.Sarah jane Hogart,Rebecca ,Amanda Mitchell Joseph was the son of William Megill 1798-1850 b. Ireland d in Thornhill Ont.Mary Jane d.1861 (remarried,Dugal Campbell) ( I have Williams will,in own hand,MEGILL),,Ireland,before that, My best guess,scotland,Meigle,Simon de meggill siblings of Joseph James,William d. as child,twin Hugh 1833-1899(Markham)William(Arora)1836,(Joseph,)Edward and some sisters I am,Daniel ,Son of William,son of Arthur,son of James,son of Hugh,son of William MJ. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Hi Deb, Just a couple of trivial observations to add to the excellent information you have been given: Perhaps this is obvious but just in case it wasn't; the "chain" and "link" measurements were quite literally that. One of the most important pieces of equipment a surveyor would take with him was his surveyor's chain which consisted of (I believe) 100 links (or it could have been 144.) The ones I have actually seen are a bit funny looking for a chain as each link is made up of a piece of fairly stiff wire or rod (1/8" to 1/4" in diameter) with a loop formed on each end. These interlink to give you the exact measurements already described. It is / was a very practical tool as it could be stretched out over the ground (or even through a pond or snow bank) without any fear of damage and then recovered by simply hauling it back in from one end. A tad on the heavy side perhaps but the old surveyors need equipment they could trust to survive! I said "is / was" earlier because I have seen a surveyor's chain being used fairly recently - well - within the last 10 years lets say. My personal favorite of this old system of measure is the "rod, pole or perch" although it has always been a mystery to me: a) why it would have three alternate names and b) why it was named such when it would seemingly be completely impractical to try and use a 5 1/2 meter long measuring stick! Perhaps one of your experts has an explanation for that one? Re, the comment about the "post" in the corner of the lot. Most surveys of land, as Robert so ably described, are based on the location of one "corner" of the lot relative to some larger plan. At that location the surveyor drives a stake into the round, primarily so he can always find his reference point, but also so that subsequent surveys don't need to go through the process of establishing the location on the larger plan - if they can find the stake. If you look at the survey plans of your property you will find reference to a single point and usually there is a metal spike in the ground at that point. This stake is also the origin of the phrase "staking a claim" but that's a whole different discussion. There, more useless information to add to the compost heap. :-) Malcolm Archive CD Books Canada Inc. President: Malcolm Moody PO Box 11 Manotick Ontario, K4M 1A2 Canada. (613) 692-2667 WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca On 21 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:07:04 +0000 > From: "Deborah Crawford" <orkney5@sympatico.ca> > Subject: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres - oh my > To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <BAY111-F30EDFAF667BE47733F9E8C805D0@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > Good morning one & all. A question to any budding or current land > surveyor > experts......... > > I'm in the midst of transcribing conveyancing instructions from a > ledger > housed in the archives at the Penetanguishene Centennial Museum. This > ledger of mortgages, lease agreements, chattel loans, wills, etc > commences > in 1905 to ? (I haven't cheated and peeked at the end of the book > yet!). > One oddity I am encountering has me curious and I thought I'd see > if any of > our listers can explain this - the land descriptions are very > detailed, but > - in land descriptions I see the terms, which I have heard before, > of - > chains, measures, links, feet, yards, rods and acres - all in the same > paragraph or on the same page. It's not a matter of it being > entered by a > different author - these reports were all entered by W.H. HEWSON. > I was > just curious to know if there was any sort of standard which > determined when > various terms were used, i.e. chains, links, etc. Or was it > merely a > matter of Mr. Hewson writing down descriptions perhaps based on > previous > descriptions, or just writing whatever his little heart desired. Any > opinions? Methinks Mr. Hewson just did this, knowing that 100 > years hence > I'd be puzzled over the same...........No?

To those who replied to my query regarding terms of measurement - I thank you. As always, replies are informative and interesting - and I think a lot of fun. Just a couple of notes regarding these early mortgage entries that I'm transcribing. In 1905 (the date that these entries start) interest on mortgages etc ranged from the lowest I've seen at 5% to the highest at 10%. Average was 6%. Annual or semi annual payments seem to be the norm, rather than the monthly or weekly payments common now. Property values were VERY inconsistent. Often times it's an obvious family connection (parents selling to children) and this can explain a low value on a property, other times it's quite noticeably "a low-low price". Town properties are not necessarily higher than rural. Chattel mortgages and loans could be made to include chattel such as "7 year old horse, Ned - bot (not my spelling - theirs) from (insert name here), roan color; 4 milk cows - 1 part Jersey, 4 years old, 2 brown in colour 3 years old, 1 red 2 years old". Houseboats, the tugobat "Minicog", all kinds of stuff was listed as chattel. I'm up to mid 1907 right now in my transcription. There is an interesting history of the area in these pages - families that, to this day, live on properties that are listed in this ledger. Local businesses that were well known in their day appear - anyone who does any research in this area will recognize the names. As well as Penetanguishene and Tiny Township, some Muskoka entries are noted, Tay Township, Midland and even Collingwood. This will be another tool for our researchers toolchest upon completion. Remember the comments made on this list quite often - think outside the usual research parameters, and look to index listings such as this for your ancestors' presence and life events. Well, off to work I go. Have a grand day one & all.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: menkyo01 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.canada.ontario.simcoe/2463.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Joseph,was a son of William 1798-1850 Ireland and Mary-Jane Megill of Thornhill Ont. Brothers were James,William,Hugh, Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

I am a title searcher at the Land Registry Office in Muskoka and the answers you have received from Bob and correct. Good job! I do research on properties in metes and bounds as well. Excellent information in Bobs posts, I would suggest printing them out for future reference. Happy Holidays to all!

>From Surveyors Historical Society: " Land Surveyor's Chain - The ordinary Gunter's or surveyor's chain is sixty-six feet or four poles long, and is composed of one hundred links, connected each to each by two rings, and furnished with a tally mark at the end of every ten links. A link in measurement includes a ring at each end, and is seven and ninety two one hundredths inches long. In all the chains which we make the rings are oval and are sawed and well closed, the ends of the wore forming the hook being also filed and bent close to the link, to avoid kinking. The oval rings are about one third stronger than round ones." An in-depth description of each section can be found on this site at: http://www.surveyhistory.org/surveyor's_chain.htm Doreen ======= > From: malcolm@archivecdbooks.ca > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:08:14 -0500 > To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres > > > Hi Deb, > > Just a couple of trivial observations to add to the excellent > information you have been given: > _________________________________________________________________ Introducing the City @ Live! Take a tour! http://getyourliveid.ca/?icid=LIVEIDENCA006