Hello Kay, You are a gem aren't you:) Thank you so much for this information. It now certainly looks as though this St Neot Charles KENDALL is not the one I am after given he is buried in 1806. I did find those children on the IGI and thought that they might be his. The name Charles is not as common as John and Williams etc so now I wonder if he is/was a cousin of some sort. Eventually I will dig him out and will keep everyone posted. Regards Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kay" <kay.halley@gmail.com> To: <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Charles KENDALL marriage c 1805 > Hi Bev > > I had a look for the St Neot one (m to Mary Broad 19 Jan 1790 St Neot) and > I > think he may be the one bap 15 Feb 1769 Lanlivery, son of Nicholas, clerk, > and Elizabeth. There's a burial of a Charles K 10 May 1806 Lanlivery, > described as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy and brother of Nicholas, > clerk, > which might be him or might be his uncle, hard to tell as there's no age > given, but the occupation is the same. I couldn't find any children for > this > couple on the OPC site, though there are four on the IGI for Charles and > Mary in the right time frame, but at St Winnow and Lostwithiel - in the > right general area but not very conclusive. > > Does this help to eliminate this Charles? > > > Kay Halley > OPC St Neot, Temple, Braddock, Boconnoc & Blisland > -------Original Message------- > > From: bedmonds > Date: 04/23/10 09:58:07 > To: cornish-gen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Charles KENDALL marriage c 1805 > > Thanks to Judith and Maureen and Alan, > > As I have previosly mentioned, the DRO could not find a Marriage at that > date [2 yrs either side] I think they would have married by Licence > anyway. > > There is also no [N] beside the entry on the DFHS Index which might > indicate > > that it was a Banns/Licence/another parish/widowe/widower entry which is > usually the case. > > I am just stumped for the time being. Charles and Elizabeth had children, > Elizabeth, Charles and John all bapt at Ashburton who I have been able to > track. I am just stumped with Charles. Never mind, I suppose I can live > without knowing who he was, but I do like to put the spouse to bed as > well. > > Best wishes and thanks again to all who have made suggestions so far. > > What I really need to know is if someone has chased this bloke and the St > Neot one down. > > Bev > > > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2829 - Release Date: 04/22/10 18:31:00

West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday 9th May, 1851. Part Two STANNARIES' COURT - WHITFORD v. SIMMONS - Mineral Court Mine - The Vice-Warden said this was an application by the plaintiff for an injunction to restrain the removal of tin ores from Mineral Court mine. Generally such applications had been made by mining creditors, upon a reasonable fear that the removal of property on which they had given credit might lessen their security, and the grounds for granting or refusing such applications being well know, he had not generally done more than say whether the injunction should be granted or not. In this case, however, the application was not so much that of a mining creditor, as that of an unpaid vendor who has parted with the property sold. Now an unpaid vendor who has parted with the property sold, might be compared, as regarded the present question, with an equitable mortgagee, who may restrain the person not paying him for lowering the value of his security; he may, for instance, prevent him from cutting timber (King v. Smith, 2 Hare's Reports, 239.) Hence he would not now say - for he was not required to - whether a mortgagor or non-paying vendee of a mine shall be restrained from mining. But he would say that Mr. Whitford, having let Mr. WEBB and others into possession of this mine, on an agreement that they shall raise and sell ores, and from the proceeds pay a stipulative part of Mr. Whitford until the GBP200 were paid, and that then Mr. Whitford shall assign his interest in the mine to Mr. Webb, - under those circumstances, he would say, that Mr. Whitford cannot restrain the sale of ores merely because, according to his view, Mr. Webb has already sold ores and not paid Mr. Whitford in compliance with his agreement. The only reason why Mr. Webb has been allowed possession is that he may raise and sell ores, and Mr. Whitford is as much interested as any one in his doing so, - therefore he cannot restrain what he has emphatically allowed. What might be Mr. Whitford remedy need not now be a subject of consideration. His Honor further observed that these were his reasons for not granting the injunction, but it seemed from the affidavit that there was not much more to be paid. Mr. Hockin intimated that the matter had been settled. POPHAM v. COATES and OTHERS, - Mr. BENNALLACK, for the defendants, obtained a rule nisi for dissolving the injunction granted in this case at the last sittings to restrain defendants from removing ore from Pengelly mine, in the parish of Crowan. JOHNS v. RICKARD and ANOTHER - A creditor's petition against a purser for payment for goods supplied amounting to GBP18. 13s. 2d. Mr. CHILCOTT obtained a decree pro confesso, for payment to be made in not less than five clear days after service. TILLY v. MACKINTOSH - West United Hills Mine. - This was a purser's petition for non-payment of debt and costs amounting to GBP85. Defendant resides out of the Stannaries. Mr. HOCKIN obtained a decree pro confesso for payment in not less than fifteen days after service. In the case of the same purser against DICKENSON, Mr. Hockin obtained a similar decree for payment of GBP55, to be made in not less than ten days after service. In the case of the same purser, versus SMALL, also for a debt of GBP55, a decree was granted for payment in ten days. Also in TILLY v. TRUSCOTT, for a debt of GBP27. 10s., Mr. Hockin obtained a decree for payment in not less than seven clear days after service. BICE v. TIPPET and OTHERS. - Tolcarne Mine. - Mr. ROBERTS obtained a rule nisi to dismiss the petition against defendants PRYOR and JOSEPH REYNOLDS for want of prosecution. MONDAY MAY 5. - On this day the Court disposed of the small debt cases (under GBP50), of which twenty were entered for trial, with fifteen motions and twenty-eight equity entries. CHRISTOPHER v. NICHOLLS - In this action Mr. ARUNDELL ROGERS, of Penzance, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. STOKES for defendant. The suit was brought for the recovery of GBP30, claimed to be due for defendant on his written undertaking to make good that amount to plaintiff on plaintiff's advancing the same to Messrs. JAMES and THOMAS OSBORNE, who were in difficulties at the time, an execution having been levied on the goods of one of them at the suit of a Mr. WILLIAMS. The guarantee was in this words:- "Dear Sir, Zennor Churchtown, Jan. 20, 1850. I recommend you to let Thomas and James Osborne have the use of your case, as they say they will return it again in about two months time. And if you are afraid of being defrauded by them of the same, I will see the same restored to you again. Yours, &c., HENRY NICHOLLS." "To Mr. NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER". It appeared by the evidence for the plaintiff, that plaintiff was a brother-in-law of the Osbornes, having married their sister, and that defendant was not a relative, but a friend of the Osbornes; that defendant was first applied to by the Osbornes for a loan, but not having the money to advance them, he wrote plaintiff as above; and that plaintiff did, after receipt of the letter, deliver to one of the Osbornes a note-of-hand on which a person called DAVEY owed plaintiff GBP30, for the Osbornes to obtain payment for Davey and apply the money to their benefit. On behalf of plaintiff it was contended by Mr. Rogers, that plaintiff parted with the note of hand to the Osbornes on the express guarantee of defendant; but one of plaintiff's witnesses, Thomas Osborne, admitted on cross-examination that plaintiff, when he received the above letter from defendant, said it was not on a stamp and worth nothing and that on his so saying, plaintiff's wife (the sister of the Osbornes) pressed plaintiff to let the Osbornes have the note-of-hand. The fact of the note being paid by Davey, and that the cash obtained on it was applied to the account of the Osbornes, was proved by Mr. ROSCORLA, of Penzance, the attorney of the persons by whom the execution has been levied on the goods of one of the Osbornes. So that the only question remaining for the jury was the effect of the defendant's letter, and whether plaintiff had parted with the note-of-hand relying on the guarantee contained in that letter, or had rejected the guarantee, and accommodated the Osbornes at the instance of plaintiff's wife. For the defence, Mr. Stokes submitted that the guarantee had been rejected by plaintiff, and actually withdrawn by defendant, before plaintiff handed the note-of-hand to the Osbornes, and that the note-of-hand was delivered to them only at the urgent entreaty of plaintiff's wife; in support of which view of the case, a respectable farmer of Zennor, called MICHELL, was called, who proved that plaintiff told him he had seen defendant after the letter was written, and that defendant had gone from his word, and the plaintiff would not lend the Osbornes money, but that he would do what he could for them, and would attend the sale of the goods seized in execution, on their behalf. James Osborne was also called for the defence, to prove that on receiving defendant's letter, plaintiff said it was worth nothing, not being stamped, and that afterwards plaintiff was induced to give Thomas Osborne the note-of-hand for GBP30 at the entreaty of plaintiff's wife. His Honor summed up the case and the jury returned a verdict for defendant. Wednesday, May 7 - LYLE v. HUNT - Carvannal Mine. This was a purser's petition against an adventurer for costs in arrear, amounting to GBP25. Mr. T. ROGERS produced affidavits of service of decree pro confesso for payment, and was granted a rule nisi for sale of share. ROSCORLA v. HOBSON - Wheal Enys. - A purser's petition for costs. Mr. STOKES had obtained a decree pro confesso for payment of GBP59. 1s. 5d., and on affidavits of service and non-payment moved for a rule nisi for sale of shares. Rule nisi granted. PENGELLY MINE - POPHAM v. COATES and OTHERS - This was a trial in equity, Mr. T. ROGERS, Mr. STOKES, and Mr. ROBERTS for the plaintiff; Mr. BENNALLACK and Mr. PLOMER for the defendants. The facts contained in the petition were stated by Mr. Roberts. The petition was filed by Mr. CHRISTOPHER WALLIS POPHAM, against Mr. WILLIAM COATS and two others, and its object was to restrain the defendants from working a mine called Pengelly, in the parish of Crowan. The plaintiff's case will be understood from the following statement by Mr. Rogers. Plaintiff is the proprietor to some extent of lands in the parishes of Sithney, Breage, and Crowan, and resides in Sithney. One of the defendants, Mr. Nicholls, also lives in Sithney; the other two defendants, Mr. COATES and Mr. GUSTARD, reside in London, and were accountants, or something of that kind. Plaintiff was the owner of the under ground profits of Pengelly estate, on which was situate Pengelly mine. In 1848, a Mr. ROBINSON applied for and obtained a license of plaintiff to work the mine for six months. Shortly before the expiration of that period, defendant Nicholls applied for a license to work the mine. The plaintiff wrote him a letter stating that Mr. Robinson's license had not expired, and that he might apply for the sett, - if he did not, plaintiff was very willing to give him a license. The first introduction of defendant Nicholls to the mines was in consequence of his stating to plaintiff that he had no means of support, on which plaintiff allowed him to go on the mine and work for a fortnight, at a tribute pitch of 18s. 6d. in the pound. At the expiration of that time he asked for a three weeks' license on the 21st of May, 1849, which the plaintiff granted till the 1st of June, 1849. During this period Nicholls was endeavouring to get adventurers to work the sett, and about the time of the expiration of his license on the 1st of June, 1849, he applied to plaintiff for a license on behalf of defendant Coates and Captain EDWARD THOMAS, (since deceased) and Nicholls was to be employed on the mine as agent. Plaintiff told defendant that if they would effectually work the mine, he had no objection to grant six months' license, which, however, was not granted until the 2nd of July, 1849. Just before granting that license, Mr. Popham wrote to Captain Edward Thomas, explaining the terms on which they should have the license, - that the mine was to be worked in an effectual, proper, and miner-like manner. That license of the 2nd of 2nd of July expired on the 2nd of January, 1850, from which time to the 26th of April the parties worked without any license, but there were negotiations proceeding during that period. On the 26th of April, another license to work for six months was granted, which expired on the 26th of October, 1850. One condition of that license of the 26th of April, was that nine men were to be continuously employed during the six months. It was also understood between the parties that a sett was to be granted at the end of the six months, but on two conditions, first, that the terms of the license were fulfilled, and secondly, that such a list of adventures was furnished as the plaintiff might approve of. He (Mr. Rogers) should show that the license of the 26th of April was granted under previous arrangements and conditions, and that before plaintiff consented to grant if, defendants Coates and Nicholls agreed with the plaintiff's toller (the mine having been worked before), that they would forthwith erect an engine for the purpose of exploring and working the mine. But instead of this, no engine had been erected to the present moment; and with regard to the employment of nine men, as named in the license, that in the view of every miner, Mr. Roberts contended, would mean nine men to be continuously employed in tutwork for the purpose of exploring. Defendants alleged in their answer that they had employed nine men, but they did not say they had employed that number in tutwork. He had no doubt that nine men had been employed there, perhaps the greater part of the time, or sometimes twenty men, but not in such a way as to satisfy the terms of the license. The workings of the mine had been carried on for the last two years, yet the work that had been done in exploring might all have been accomplished by nine men in nine months. The fact was that instead of erecting an engine to carry on operations below the adit level, and employing tutwork men, they had set tribute pitches and taken away the backs of the lodes above the adit, selling the tin sometimes fortnightly or weekly, and by taking away the backs had made the mine all the worse for any future company of adventurers. Mr. Rogers further said he should prove by plaintiff's toller, Captain SAMUEL ADAMS, that complaints had been repeatedly made to defendants Nicholls and Coates, that they were not effectually working the mine. He further went on to state that in October, 1850, when defendants' license expired, there were various interviews between defendants Coates and Nicholls and plaintiff and Captain Adams. At the first interview, defendants asked plaintiff to give them a further license for twelve months; but Mr. Popham told them that no license or sett would be granted unless a sum of money was deposited with him as a guarantee for the effectual working of the mine. Plaintiff afterwards saw his toller, Adams, and gave him directions to make the best arrangement he could with Mr. Coates as to the amount to be deposited. The toller then made an arrangement with Coates to grant a further license for twelve months on a deposit of GBP50; but Mr. Popham, in ignorance of that arrangement, wrote the letter of the 17th of October, (set out in the petition), and which mentioned GBP100 as the sum to be deposited. That course, the deposit of a sum of money as a guarantee for effectual working, Mr. Rogers said was what was commonly asked for in this county by landed proprietors when they are not perfectly satisfied with the responsibility of the parties who seek to work their land, the deposit being forfeited to the proprietor in case the agreement is not carried out. Mr. Rogers further read a letter from WILLIAM DAVEY, (pay-clerk of the mine) in reference to this agreement for the deposit of GBP50; it being a part of the agreement between the toller and Coates, that on the GBP50 being sent down, defendants should have the further license of Pengelly mine for twelve months, and also a little mine called Wheal Harriet, and the toller furnished Davey with the grant of Wheal Harriet on the promise that the GBP50 should be forthcoming. Mr. Rogers next referred to the list of adventurers which was handed by defendant Coates to plaintiff just before the expiration of the license in October last. That list, he said was totally unsatisfactory to plaintiff. He read the seven names of the parties, to whom were allotted 355 shares, whilst the whole number, according to a prospectus issued, was to be 1,248 shares. Twenty shares were appropriated to defendant Nicholls, and the other shareholders were parties resident in London, and under the last name which had shares opposite to it, were the names of two ladies with no shares mentioned. Though the shareholders were all dubbed esquires in the list, it was not such a list as plaintiff could approve of, and having only 355 shares allotted out of 1,248. He then went on to read from a printed prospectus of the concern, that the 1248 shares were to be allotted at GBP2 each, and in the handwriting of defendant Coates, at the bottom of the printed prospectus, a committee of management was named, all resident in London, and then followed a "very cheering" report of the mine by defendant Nicholls, setting out the state of the workings, the tin they had sold and expected to sell, &c. Defendants stated in their answer that they had expended GBP500 in the mine, but he (Mr. Rogers) would ask whether that corresponded with the report of Nicholls, which stated that thousands of pounds worth of ore could be raised from the mine, without incurring the cost of an engine. He should prove that no such sum as GBP500 had been expended; the only machinery defendants had placed on the mine was a horse whim, which was brought for GBP3 or GBP3. 10s., and the only erections were a counting-house and smiths' shop, and miners would be amused when told that both those erections were made at a cost of GBP8. He should also say that both those erections had been made since the expiration of the license, since which time notwithstanding the denial of plaintiff, they had continued to carry on their operations; yet the whole cost of their workings, &c., could not have cost more that GBP250 instead of GBP500 as stated by defendants. He should also show that more than GBP300 worth of ores had been sold, and that there was now about GBP100 worth on the mine, a considerable quantity having been raised since the injunction was granted by the Vice-Warden's Court to restrain the removal of ores. Mr. Rogers submitted that the spirit and intention of the license granted to defendants for six months, was not that they should go there to explore entirely unexplored ground, but to extend a mine which had been to some extent worked before. To show this, he read a letter from plaintiff to defendant Coats, on the 18th of March, 1850. Defendants however, had not acted according to the spirit and intention, or the terms of the license. They had not employed nine men continuously as had been agreed on, and which condition in a license he should call evidence to show meant nine men to be employed in tut-work; for according to good mining, whilst the backs of the lodes were stopped on tribute, tutwork men ought to have been employed in driving the end at the same time. The conditions of the license had therefore been broken, by the non-employment of tutwork men in excavating and exploring, and by the non-production of a satisfactory list of adventurers. If indeed, defendants had ever a right to the sett, they had abandoned that right by entering on a subsequent agreement, which agreement also they had failed to fulfil. The course they had been pursuing was to the damage of plaintiff's property, who had lost in dues by the mine not being effectually worked, whilst also by the course defendants had taken, the sett had been rendered less valuable for another company. He enlarged on these points to some extent, and trusted that the court would grant an injunction to restrain the defendants from working, and also order than an account should be rendered by defendants of the ores they had raised, in accordance with the prayer of the petition. After some suggestions by the Vice Warden with the view of having irrelevant matters discarded from the evidence, Mr. Rogers called in support of the plaintiff's case, Captain SAMUEL ADAMS, toller for plaintiff Captain M. W. MARTIN, toller for Canon ROGERS; Captain RICHARD BLIGHT, of Wheal Vor; W. E. CUDLIP, merchant; and R. GOLDSWORTHY, miner. The Court then rose. Thursday, May 8. - POPHAM v. COATES and OTHERS - The case was proceeded with this morning. Mr. Stokes on the part of plaintiff, summed up the evidence; after which Mr. Plomer addressed the Court in behalf of defendants, and then proceeded to call witnesses. We shall give the remaining part of the trial next week.

West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser. Friday, 9th May, 1851. FOR VALPARAISO DIRECT - To follow the "Forfarshire" the fine Clipper Barque "Jane Boyd," Coppered, 387 Tons Register, ISAAC MERCHANT, Master, will leave Falmouth for the above Port direct, about the end of May, and offers a very desirable opportunity to passengers who may wish to proceed to Copiapo. This superior vessel has excellent accommodation for cabin and steerage passengers. For terms of freight or passage, apply to G. C. and R. W. FOX, and co., Falmouth, April 23, 1851. Falmouth. FOR PORT LYTTLETON, CANTERBURY SETTLEMENT - With liberty to land passengers and goods at the undermentioned ports in New Zealand, the first-class passenger ships, "Lady Nugent," 668 tons register, for Canterbury, Nelson, and New Plymouth, to sail on the 28th of May; "Duke of Portland," 533 tons register, for Canterbury, Wellington, and Auckland, to sail on the 28th of May, lying in the East India Docks, chartered and provisioned by the Canterbury Association. Rates of Passage:- A whole Cabin between decks, GBP42; second Cabin, GBP25; Steerage, GBP16; Children under fourteen, one-half. Each Ship carries an experienced Surgeon. For Freight, Passage, or further information, apply to J. STAYNER, 110 Fenchurch-street; FILBY and CO., 157 Fenchurch-street; or to FREDERICK YOUNG, Manager of Shipping for the Canterbury Association, 74 Cornhill. Dated April 23, 1851. THE CENSUS - MARAZION and ST. MICHAEL'S MOUNT - At the census of 1851, the population of Marazion was 637 males and 739 females; total 1,376; showing a decrease of 307 as compared with the population in 1841, which was then 795 males and 888 females. The population of St. Michael's Mount in 1841 was 162; in 1851, 65 males and 82 females; total 147; being a decrease of 15 since 1841. St Enoder - 603 males 550 females. 1841 Census 1127. Increase 26. Newlyn - 1098 males 1054 females. 1841 Census 1451. Increase 701. Cubert - 204 males 232 females 1841 Census 367. Increase 69. Crantock - 226 males 225 females 1841 Census 450. Increase 1. St. Just in Roseland, Sancreed, and Morvah. The following are the returns by the recent census for these parishes:- St. Just 4,447 males 4,312 females Total 8,759. Sancreed 699 males 699 females Total 1,398. Morvah 186 males 181 females Total 367. Being an increase since 1841, in the parish of St. Just, of 1,716; in Sancreed, of 150; and a decrease in Morvah, of 28. PACKET ARRIVAL - On Wednesday week, the "Seagull," Lieut. SMALL, arrived from Rio Janeiro, after a passage of forty-seven days. She brought only a small parcel of letters, and but three packets of diamonds on freight. This is the last vessel on this station as a packet, and with her this old and valuable station ceases to be the starting port for her Majesty's mails, at least for the present. APOTHECARIES' HALL - The following are amongst those who passed their examination in the science and practice of medicine, and received certificates to practice, on Thursday May 1:- PHILIP VINCENT, Camborne; and HENRY SPRY LEVERTON, Truro. LONDON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL - The first certificate of honor in the junior anatomy class, was, on Saturday last, conferred on Mr. F. T. BOND, formerly of Truro. WEST DIVISION OF PENWITH - Caution to Van Proprietors - At the monthly meeting of the Magistrates for this division, held in the Guildhall, Penzance, on Wednesday last, JOHN PARKYN, the owner of an unlicensed stage carriage, travelling between Penzance and Redruth, appeared to answer a charge of having on the 22nd day of February last, driven his carriage beyond the rate allowed by Act of Parliament, i.e., four miles in the hour. Mr. JACKSON, supervisor of Excise, at Penzance, with Mr. ROSCORLA, solicitor, attended on behalf of the Commissioners of the Revenue. On behalf of the prosecution Mr. BISHOP was called, who deposed that he rode in defendant's van on the day in question, and that it travelled at a greater rate than four miles an hour. Mr. E. S. BOYNS was also called for the purpose of proving the parishes through which the defendant travelled in going from Penzance to Redruth. For the defence Mr. PASCOE complained that the charge ought to have been preferred at an earlier period; the offence having been committed so long ago as February last, and the defendant was utterly unable to recollect the names of any passengers who travelled with him on the occasion. The defendant denied that he had travelled beyond the rate allowed in his van on the day in question. The Magistrates awarded that the defendant should pay the mitigated penalty of GBP10. WILLIAM HENRY UREN, the owner of a stage carriage travelling between Penzance and Helston, was directed to pay a similar penalty for travelling beyond the rate allowed by act of Parliament on the 10th of March last. There were several cases of assault, and other charges heard, but nothing worthy of public interest, and the sittings were over at an early hour. ST. AUSTELL PETTY SESSIONS - At these sessions on Tuesday last, JOHN ANNEAR, who keeps the Seven Stars Inn, was convicted in the penalty of 20s. and costs, for permitting drunkenness in his house on Sunday the 20th ult. WILLIAM HOUGHTON, of Charlestown, was summoned to answer the charge of having obstructed the turnpike road in the town of St. Austell, on the 12th ult. It appeared in evidence that Houghton was an old offender, that he frequently left his wagon in the streets for hours together, that he had been warned by the police, and that on the day in question his wagon and horses were standing in the street from two to past seven o'clock p.m., Houghton himself the meanwhile drinking in a public house. He was convicted in the penalty of GBP2 and costs. JOHN MELLOW, of St. Stephens in Branwell, was convicted of committing a similar offence on the 25th ult., and was fined 5s. and costs. PETER CLEMES, of St. Austell; appeared to answer a charge under 12th and 13th Victoria, c. 92, for cock fighting, or encouraging aiding and assisting at the fighting of the same on Good Friday last. The case was dismissed for want of evidence. Mr. THOMAS JAGO, of Mevagissey, was convicted in the penalty of 5s. and costs for assaulting HENRY COVINS, on the 3rd instant. ROBBERY AT HAYLE COPPERHOUSE - On Wednesday night, or early in the morning of Thursday the 1st instant, the shop premises of Mr. HARRIS, barber and hair dresser, Hayle Copperhouse, was entered by some thief, who carried off a quantity of razors, besides a macintosh and great coat. The shop of Mr. INGRAM, watchmaker, which is a room slightly partitioned off from the above premises, was also entered and robbed of a watch movement in parts, barrel and glass, together with a watchmaker's eye-glass. It is supposed that the party must have entered through the back door, which could not have been secured during the night, as there is no trace of forcible entrance. A reward of GBP1 has been since offered for the discovery of the guilty party. ROBBERY AT ALTARNUN - At Camelford, on the 3rd instant, JOHN PAUL, a travelling pedlar, was committed by the Rev. ROGER BIRD, to the county goal, to take his trial at the next sessions, for robbing a miner of the name of WILKIE of his bundle, on the highway in the parish of Altarnun. ACCIDENT WITH POWDER - On Tuesday morning last, a young woman named NICHOLLS, employed in the shop of Messrs. WHEELER and HIGMAN, St. Austell, went into the wareroom to fetch two pounds of powder, but instead of returning to the shop went into the kitchen and stood before the fire with the powder in her hand, when some loose grains on her dress ignited and set her all in a blaze. Fortunately the cover of the canister was off, and the powder had free vent, otherwise she must have been blown to atoms. She had the presence of mind to run and roll herself in an ashpit that was near, and although severely burnt, she is in a fair way of recovery. MINE ACCIDENT - On Monday last an accident happened at Wheal Betsy Mine, in the parish of St. Agnes. It appears that two horses belonging to Mr. EDWARD BUTSON where drawing the whim, when from some cause, one of the kibbles pitched in the shaft, and after some time it fell away, in consequence of which, the whim was driven at such a rate that the horses could not keep pace with it. One of the horses was killed on the spot, and the other horse and the driver narrowly escaped. CORONER'S INQUESTS - The following inquests have been held before Mr. JOSEPH HAMLEY, county coroner:- On the 25th ult., at Molines in St. Austell, on LOUISA HEMETT, a child. The mother left the child in a chair near the fire, whilst going to the garden adjoining for clothes. Returning in about five minutes she found some of the kitchen full of smoke, and on approaching the child found her clothes all on fire. She put out the fire, but the injuries were such that she died in about two hours. It was supposed that some clothes, which the mother had put to dry, had caught fire and came in contact with the child's clothes. Verdict, "accidentally burnt to death." On the 26th ult., at Luxulyan, on ANN SOWDEN. She had been an old servant of the Rev. R. G. GRYLLS. A neighbour was speaking to her at her door when she appeared in good health; but she suddenly fell down and was dead in an instant. Verdict, "visitation of God." On the 29th ult., at the parish of Liskeard, on the body of ELIZABETH TRELEAVEN. It appeared that she had been staying with her daughter at Looe, and was going from that place to Fowey in a van. On coming to Bodinick Passage, she got out to walk down the hill, when a bullock, that was driven down the hill for the purpose of being taken across the ferry, ran at her, gored, and injured her so much that she was taken back to Looe and from thence to her home, where she died in consequence of the injuries she received from the bullock. There did not appear to be any blame, to any one, as the bullock was frightened by the people endeavouring to get him into the boat. Verdict accordingly. On the 2nd of May, at St. Blazey on the body of ROBERT VICARY. He was a master shoemaker and had been for many years subject to epileptic fits. He got up about six o'clock in the morning as usual for the purpose of going to his shop. One of his workmen came soon after and not finding the shop open, went to his house for the key. Not finding him he waited some time and seeing his mother coming from a neighbour's house, asked where he was, she told him she thought he had gone to the shop. He was in the habit of going to a summer house in the garden to read, close by where there was an old pit. His mother went there to see for him and found him with his legs upward in the pit; she got assistance and he was taken out. Mr. PETERS, surgeon was soon in attendance and used every means to restore animation, but without effect. There was no doubt but that he had been seized with a fit and fallen into the pit and was suffocated. Verdict accordingly. On Saturday last, Mr. JOHN CARLYON held an inquest at the Redruth Union House, on the body of WILLIAM BAWDEN, late of the parish of Phillack, labourer, aged 70 years, a recently-admitted pauper to the house. He was found dead in the water-closet belonging to the establishment on Friday. Verdict "visitation of God." An inquest was held at St. Columb, on Friday last the 2nd instant, before Mr. GILBERT HAMLEY, deputy coroner, on the body of a young man, called JOHN ELLIS, son of Mr. Ellis, saddler, of that place, and lately a clerk in the office of Messrs. COLLINS and SON, who was found in a dying state on the previous day in a stable at the back of his father's residence. The following is the evidence of the witnesses:- ELIZABETH ELLIS - I am the mother of the deceased, he is twenty one years of age. I last saw my son alive in my stable between eleven and twelve o'clock; he was sick and throwing up. He sat down on the sofa and complained of being sick, and went out into the stable. I followed him. I asked him if he had taken anything; I asked him twice, he said he had bought something in Truro. I left him and sent for Mr. NANKIVELL. When I returned he had fallen along, lying on some furze. I spoke to him, but he never answered, and never spoke any more. Mr. MOORMAN was the first who came to the stable whilst I was there. My son gave me a bottle before I sent for Mr. Nankivell; he took it from his pocket. I gave it to Mr. Moorman. He took breakfast with me in the morning; he appeared very comfortable. He returned from the west of this county the night before, where he had been for a few days on a visit. He came home in Cornish's van. WILLIAM TRUMAN, clerk to Messrs. Collins and Son, said the deceased was clerk in the same office for nearly six years. He was always weak in mind, and had very strange notions. Was very fond of talking of suicides and murders. Was very much impaired in mind; saw him about a quarter of an hour before he died. SARAH ELLIS, aunt to deceased, saw him with something in his pocket; asked him what it was; he said it was a bottle, and then went away to the stable. Mr. MOORMAN, surgeon, - Was called on Thursday about one o'clock by Mrs. Nankivell, to attend on JOHN ELLIS, who was said to be taken in a fit. I immediately attended, and found deceased supported by two men on a chair in a stable; I found him pale, gasping, and in fact dying. I had him placed on his back, and brought in the air, and thence in the parlour on the sofa. By the time we had him there he was dead. I made some endeavour to reanimate him, but failed. His mother handed me a bottle which she had taken from the hands of deceased. I then, with Mr. Nankivell, who had arrived, examined the bottle, and found nothing poisonous. I then went back to deceased, and took from his left pocket a bottle which I now produce. I smelt to it, and became convinced that it contained prussic acid. I have no doubt that the deceased died from the effects of prussic acid. Mr. Nankivell, surgeon - I was yesterday summoned to attend deceased. I have attended him professionally. I attended him two and a half years since, and found him in a great state of debility, both of mind and body. He was not in a condition to conduct any business. When I came to the house he was dead. Mr. Moorman was by him. This witness corroborated Mr. Moorman, as to the finding the poison, and as to the cause of death, and added that there was no label on the bottle, that he always looked on him as a youth of weak intellect, and was not at all surprised to find that his death was occasioned by himself. REBECCA RUNNALS - I left Truro on Wednesday afternoon. The deceased came up in the same van with me. I have known him some time. He talked in the van about murders, and people poisoning themselves, and dying suddenly. The jury found "That the deceased died from taking Prussic Acid, being at the time of unsound mind." On Friday last, in the parish of Lanivet on view of the body of FRANCIS VERRANT, a little boy eleven years of age, who was killed in the following frightful manner, on the previous day. Mr. WALTER GROSE, a farmer, residing at Lanivet, stated that on the previous evening he heard a horse coming towards him at a very rapid pace, and on looking in the direction, he observed that the poor little fellow who had been riding on a side-saddle, had fallen from the horse, and his foot was caught in the stirrup. The body was swinging to and from in a most frightful manner. He stopped the horse and cut off the stirrup. The boy was quite insensible, and remained in that state for about an hour, when he died. The head of the boy did not reach the ground, but the horse in galloping must have struck him at almost every stride. The scalp was cut completely off. Verdict, "accidental death."

Thanks for that hint Judith, I hadn't contacted them individually, I'll get straight on to them. Manny Thanks John -------------------------------------------------- From: <JudithUpton@aol.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 6:55 PM To: <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] John DADDOE/DADDOW and Margery PENQUITE. > > > > In a message dated 23/04/2010 09:30:58 GMT Daylight Time, > johnjgriffiths@bigpond.com writes: > > Hi lister, > > I'm seeking assistance in locating children to the marriage of John > DADDOE/DADDOW and Joan PENQUITE who's marriage took place on 1 May 1714 > at > Golant, St. Sampson. The marriage is listed as John DADDOE on both the > Phillimore's Index and Cornwall OPC and John was from Tywardreath. > > They had a daughter Joan DADDOW b abt 1819. I can find no reference to > any > children on IGI or Cornwall OPC. I think there may also be a son called > Samuel. > > Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. > > Many Thanks > John >>From Newcastle NSW Aus > > > > John > > Have you contacted the OPCs for the parishes of Tywardreath, St Blazey > and > St Sampson in Golant? They may have transcriptions or access to records > which are not on the IGI or in the Cornwall Database. > > The individual parishes can be accessed from this page: > > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/Par_new/parishes.php > > Contact information for each OPC is on their page - and links to any web > site that they may have for their parish. > > And this is a really useful page. It tells you exactly what coverage > each > parish currently has in the database: > > http://www.cornwall-opc-database.org/coverage_parishes.php > > regards > Judith > > > > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks to Judith and Maureen and Alan, As I have previosly mentioned, the DRO could not find a Marriage at that date [2 yrs either side] I think they would have married by Licence anyway. There is also no [N] beside the entry on the DFHS Index which might indicate that it was a Banns/Licence/another parish/widowe/widower entry which is usually the case. I am just stumped for the time being. Charles and Elizabeth had children, Elizabeth, Charles and John all bapt at Ashburton who I have been able to track. I am just stumped with Charles. Never mind, I suppose I can live without knowing who he was, but I do like to put the spouse to bed as well. Best wishes and thanks again to all who have made suggestions so far. What I really need to know is if someone has chased this bloke and the St Neot one down. Bev

Hi lister, I'm seeking assistance in locating children to the marriage of John DADDOE/DADDOW and Joan PENQUITE who's marriage took place on 1 May 1714 at Golant, St. Sampson. The marriage is listed as John DADDOE on both the Phillimore's Index and Cornwall OPC and John was from Tywardreath. They had a daughter Joan DADDOW b abt 1819. I can find no reference to any children on IGI or Cornwall OPC. I think there may also be a son called Samuel. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks John >From Newcastle NSW Aus

Judith, The OPC is unavailable at the moment. I have already asked the DRO to check the marriage and their Research Officer says it is not there, she checked two years either side of the 1805 date. The same marriage is also on the DFHS Marriage Index which I already have. All very Odd, i say. Thanks for your imput. Bev Oz ----- Original Message ----- From: <JudithUpton@aol.com> To: <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Charles KENDALL marriage c 1805 > > In a message dated 23/04/2010 05:36:42 GMT Daylight Time, > beverley@yourisp.com.au writes: > > I am stuck with a marriage for Charles KENDALL to Elizabeth EDMONDS said > to > have been held in Ashburton, Devon on the 7 Jan 1805. > > Bev > > That's really odd because on the IGI it is included in a batch of over > 200 > marriages for Ashburton which have been extracted from Parish Registers. > Unless someone entered the wrong parish for the whole batch.... > > Have you tried asking the Devon FHS for a look - up on their marriage > index? Or ring the DRO and see if they would quickly check the Ashburton > fiche > for you. > > There is an OPC for Ashburton - Linda Philips > > _linda.phillips5@btinternet.com_ (mailto:linda.phillips5@btinternet.com) > > have you tried contacting her? > > regards > Judith > > > > > > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2829 - Release Date: 04/22/10 18:31:00

Hello Listers, I am stuck with a marriage for Charles KENDALL to Elizabeth EDMONDS said to have been held in Ashburton, Devon on the 7 Jan 1805. The DRO says there is no such marriage when I asked for a look-up. So......... is the Index wrong or did this marriage take place in Cornwall. Is the date wrong on the Index, although a daughter is baptised in Ashburton 9 weeks later. The DRO checked 2 yrs either side of that date but no marriage. There is a Charles KENDALL married to a Mary BROAD 19 Jan 1790 in St Neot. Has anyone researched this chap? Did he have children in St Neot? Did Mary die there? Did Charles move to Devon? He was a Solicitor. When he married in St Neot he is recorded as a Sojourner and a Lieut. to boot. Just the sort of chap who might end up as a Solicitor Grateful for any help received, especially if someone has this Charles KENDALL in their Tree. I would like to discount him if possible or better still claim the dear man. Regards Bev Edmonds

Hi Phil, Many thanks for the quick response and for your comments too. I registered this domain in 2003, but for a variety of reasons there were several 'false-starts' which delayed going live for far too long. > I just wonder if perhaps you are duplicating what already exists? To a degree but if anything, only duplicating opportunity, for I guess this is what competition is all about - the Users will decide what suits them and align their loyalties accordingly. It is true there are other sites, which are mainly an adjunct to a paid-for newspaper service and for the Searcher these can offer quite extensive data from the outset. However they all seem to involve payment, either openly at the front-end as in the case of newspapers, or by offering 'free' posting plus a charging mechanism for 'virtual gifts', 'virtual flowers' etc. http://www.gonetoosoon.org/ [owned by All Points North Publications Ltd] is devoted to deaths only, as the domain name suggests and this offers the 'gifts' option, whereas http://www.familynotices.org is for all types of announcements and is totally devoid of all charges. One particular aspect which arose during the long [very] development of FamilyNotices was the 'Search or Post' debate, for it highlighted the varying interests that Users have. The prime intention was to provide the User with a facility to post a message and display it to the whole World, plus send 'tell a friend' email links. The opportunity for searches by anyone, not just family historians is [marginally] a secondary, albeit immensely valuable benefit. The reason this site has been brought to the attention of fellow family historians is because they too have other facets to their lives, not just researching the past. Genealogists also have families & friends who all experience social milestones like engagements, marriages, new arrivals as well as deaths, and I felt that _more than any other social group_ they especially would appreciate the value of a centralised store for this information - if only for others later. I do hope you decide to use it for any type of message, celebratory as well as obituary! Cheers, Nigel ______________________________________________ FamilyNotices.org - the free online repository for all notices of Births, Deaths, Marriages, Engagements, Anniversaries and Missing Persons Doing it for free - unlike the newspapers ! Visit www.familynotices.org Follow us on Twitter www.twitter.com/familynotices ______________________________________________ > -----Original Message----- > From: cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:cornish-gen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Philip Keast > Sent: 23 April 2010 12:23 > To: cornish-gen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] A new website - www.familynotices.org > > Hi Nigel, > > Whilst trawling the internet looking for obituaries, I have > come across: > > http://www.lastingtribute.co.uk/ > > Which states that: > > "In addition to tributes originated by visitors to our > website, thousands of > newspaper bereavement notices, in memoriam messages and other > notices are > automatically added from Northcliffe media's newspapers in > the west and east > Midlands, South Wales, the Westcountry, Gloucestershire, the > south-east and > Lincolnshire. This is a service covered by the price when notices are > submitted for inclusion in the local newspapers". > > They charge £10 to create a new tribute - although there is no fee to > search. > > In addition there is: > > http://www.gonetoosoon.org/ > > which states that it is free. > > I just wonder if perhaps you are duplicating what already exists? > > Kind regards, > > Phil Keast

Hi Nigel, Whilst trawling the internet looking for obituaries, I have come across: http://www.lastingtribute.co.uk/ Which states that: "In addition to tributes originated by visitors to our website, thousands of newspaper bereavement notices, in memoriam messages and other notices are automatically added from Northcliffe media's newspapers in the west and east Midlands, South Wales, the Westcountry, Gloucestershire, the south-east and Lincolnshire. This is a service covered by the price when notices are submitted for inclusion in the local newspapers". They charge £10 to create a new tribute - although there is no fee to search. In addition there is: http://www.gonetoosoon.org/ which states that it is free. I just wonder if perhaps you are duplicating what already exists? Kind regards, Phil Keast ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Penton Tilbury" <nigelt@familynotices.org> To: <CORNISH-GEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:40 AM Subject: [CORNISH-GEN] A new website - www.familynotices.org > Posted with the kind permission of the Listowner. > > You are cordially invited to visit www.familynotices.org, a totally > non-commercial site. > > Following the death of a close family member, I was surprised at the > charges > levied by the local newspaper for posting just a small obituary. The same > applies to birth, engagement, marriage notices et al. It made me think > through the whole 'public notices' concept and I created FamilyNotices.org > which is an on-line repository for all such, with no fees or charges to > post, view or search. > > Unlike a newspaper this has the advantage of being world-wide, free and > doesn't get thrown away! > > Messages posted do not have to be current - details of 'Aunt Millie born > in > 1896' is just as relevant as a modern-day wedding notice. > > Just register, log-on and enter your messages & please tell your friends, > for anyone is welcome to post good news or sad news. > > Cheers for now, > > > Nigel > > > ______________________________________________ > > FamilyNotices.org - the free online repository > for all notices of Births, Deaths, Marriages, > Engagements, Anniversaries and Missing Persons > > Doing it for free - unlike the newspapers ! > > > Visit www.familynotices.org > > Follow us on Twitter > www.twitter.com/familynotices > > ______________________________________________ > > ------------------------------- > Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com > > Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information > http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Bev I had a look for the St Neot one (m to Mary Broad 19 Jan 1790 St Neot) and I think he may be the one bap 15 Feb 1769 Lanlivery, son of Nicholas, clerk, and Elizabeth. There's a burial of a Charles K 10 May 1806 Lanlivery, described as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy and brother of Nicholas, clerk, which might be him or might be his uncle, hard to tell as there's no age given, but the occupation is the same. I couldn't find any children for this couple on the OPC site, though there are four on the IGI for Charles and Mary in the right time frame, but at St Winnow and Lostwithiel - in the right general area but not very conclusive. Does this help to eliminate this Charles? Kay Halley OPC St Neot, Temple, Braddock, Boconnoc & Blisland -------Original Message------- From: bedmonds Date: 04/23/10 09:58:07 To: cornish-gen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] Charles KENDALL marriage c 1805 Thanks to Judith and Maureen and Alan, As I have previosly mentioned, the DRO could not find a Marriage at that date [2 yrs either side] I think they would have married by Licence anyway. There is also no [N] beside the entry on the DFHS Index which might indicate that it was a Banns/Licence/another parish/widowe/widower entry which is usually the case. I am just stumped for the time being. Charles and Elizabeth had children, Elizabeth, Charles and John all bapt at Ashburton who I have been able to track. I am just stumped with Charles. Never mind, I suppose I can live without knowing who he was, but I do like to put the spouse to bed as well. Best wishes and thanks again to all who have made suggestions so far. What I really need to know is if someone has chased this bloke and the St Neot one down. Bev ------------------------------- Listmom: ybowers@gmail.com or CORNISH-GEN-admin@rootsweb.com Visit the OPC (Online Parish Clerk) web page for transcription information http://www.cornwall-opc.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CORNISH-GEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Posted with the kind permission of the Listowner. You are cordially invited to visit www.familynotices.org, a totally non-commercial site. Following the death of a close family member, I was surprised at the charges levied by the local newspaper for posting just a small obituary. The same applies to birth, engagement, marriage notices et al. It made me think through the whole 'public notices' concept and I created FamilyNotices.org which is an on-line repository for all such, with no fees or charges to post, view or search. Unlike a newspaper this has the advantage of being world-wide, free and doesn't get thrown away! Messages posted do not have to be current - details of 'Aunt Millie born in 1896' is just as relevant as a modern-day wedding notice. Just register, log-on and enter your messages & please tell your friends, for anyone is welcome to post good news or sad news. Cheers for now, Nigel ______________________________________________ FamilyNotices.org - the free online repository for all notices of Births, Deaths, Marriages, Engagements, Anniversaries and Missing Persons Doing it for free - unlike the newspapers ! Visit www.familynotices.org Follow us on Twitter www.twitter.com/familynotices ______________________________________________

Hello Bev, All Devon FHS 1754-1812 Marriage Index printouts have a note following results which includes: It is possible a very small number of entries in this index may refer to Banns rather than a marriage. Suggest you ask the DRO to check for a Banns entry. Regards, Maureen bedmonds writes: > Hello Listers, > > I am stuck with a marriage for Charles KENDALL to Elizabeth EDMONDS said to > have been held in Ashburton, Devon on the 7 Jan 1805. > > The DRO says there is no such marriage when I asked for a look-up. > So......... is the Index wrong or did this marriage take place in Cornwall. > Is the date wrong on the Index, although a daughter is baptised in Ashburton > 9 weeks later. The DRO checked 2 yrs either side of that date but no > marriage. > > There is a Charles KENDALL married to a Mary BROAD 19 Jan 1790 in St Neot. > Has anyone researched this chap? Did he have children in St Neot? Did Mary > die there? Did Charles move to Devon? He was a Solicitor. > > When he married in St Neot he is recorded as a Sojourner and a Lieut. to > boot. Just the sort of chap who might end up as a Solicitor > > Grateful for any help received, especially if someone has this Charles > KENDALL in their Tree. I would like to discount him if possible or better > still claim the dear man. > > Regards > Bev Edmonds >

In a message dated 23/04/2010 09:30:58 GMT Daylight Time, johnjgriffiths@bigpond.com writes: Hi lister, I'm seeking assistance in locating children to the marriage of John DADDOE/DADDOW and Joan PENQUITE who's marriage took place on 1 May 1714 at Golant, St. Sampson. The marriage is listed as John DADDOE on both the Phillimore's Index and Cornwall OPC and John was from Tywardreath. They had a daughter Joan DADDOW b abt 1819. I can find no reference to any children on IGI or Cornwall OPC. I think there may also be a son called Samuel. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks John >From Newcastle NSW Aus John Have you contacted the OPCs for the parishes of Tywardreath, St Blazey and St Sampson in Golant? They may have transcriptions or access to records which are not on the IGI or in the Cornwall Database. The individual parishes can be accessed from this page: http://www.cornwall-opc.org/Par_new/parishes.php Contact information for each OPC is on their page - and links to any web site that they may have for their parish. And this is a really useful page. It tells you exactly what coverage each parish currently has in the database: http://www.cornwall-opc-database.org/coverage_parishes.php regards Judith

In a message dated 23/04/2010 09:06:45 GMT Daylight Time, JudithUpton@aol.com writes: "Do baptisms appear for any of their children in Asburton or surrounding areas after 1805?" Ok! I answered that for myself: John, Elizabeth and Charles - so Charles and Elizabeth did marry. Were they both from Ashburton? Was either from another parish? Could they have married there instead? Have you checked all of the parishes surrounding Ashburton? regards Judith

Bev This is from the source notes for the Asburton batch: "Volume 4, Marriages, 1603-1805 Volume 5, Marriages, 1805-1837 and banns, 1754-1811, 1818-1837 Volume 6 Burials, 1603-1685 " The batch has been compiled from a transcription of the Registers taken around 1930. Maureen could be right, these may just be banns. If so, they could have married anywhere, or not at all. Nothing appears in the Cornwall database. Do baptisms appear for any of their children in Asburton or surrounding areas after 1805? Judith

In a message dated 23/04/2010 05:36:42 GMT Daylight Time, beverley@yourisp.com.au writes: I am stuck with a marriage for Charles KENDALL to Elizabeth EDMONDS said to have been held in Ashburton, Devon on the 7 Jan 1805. Bev That's really odd because on the IGI it is included in a batch of over 200 marriages for Ashburton which have been extracted from Parish Registers. Unless someone entered the wrong parish for the whole batch.... Have you tried asking the Devon FHS for a look - up on their marriage index? Or ring the DRO and see if they would quickly check the Ashburton fiche for you. There is an OPC for Ashburton - Linda Philips _linda.phillips5@btinternet.com_ (mailto:linda.phillips5@btinternet.com) have you tried contacting her? regards Judith

Hi Myra, Thanks for directing me to that page, I found it very interesting. I'm pretty sure they already have my info but if not I will certainly pass it along to them, Thanks again, Lorna Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 05:39:13 +0100 From: "Myra Cordrey" <myra@minebydesign.co.uk> Subject: Re: [CORNISH-GEN] HONYCOMBE MATTHEW & JOANE RAINHOLDE married 1682 St.Cleer To: <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <52B66C0CA76C45DEA1FF38373836FBA1@Gollum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello Lorna A history of the Honeycombe (and variants) family can be found on my Calstock website at http://www.calstock.info/people/pdfs/honeycombe3.pdf. Permission to reproduce the extensively-researched documents was given by Gordon Honeycombe, who now lives in Australia. The final section of the "Early Honecombes" is devoted to Matthew, the husband of Joan. If you can add anything to the details given there, whether for or against the assumptions made, then Honeycombe researchers worldwide would be very grateful if you'd be willing to share them. Regards Myra

Hello Lorna A history of the Honeycombe (and variants) family can be found on my Calstock website at http://www.calstock.info/people/pdfs/honeycombe3.pdf. Permission to reproduce the extensively-researched documents was given by Gordon Honeycombe, who now lives in Australia. The final section of the "Early Honecombes" is devoted to Matthew, the husband of Joan. If you can add anything to the details given there, whether for or against the assumptions made, then Honeycombe researchers worldwide would be very grateful if you'd be willing to share them. Regards Myra OPC, Calstock & St Dominick OPC Coordinator, Cornwall (www.cornwall-opc.org) List Admin Eng-Tamar-Valley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lorna Pratt" <lornapratt@hotmail.com> To: <cornish-gen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:59 AM Subject: [CORNISH-GEN] HONYCOMBE MATTHEW & JOANE RAINHOLDE married 1682 St.Cleer Hi Everyone, Is anyone else researching the above couple? I am interested to know if anyone has parents for either one. There is a family tree online that claims the Honycombe's in St. Cleer may have originated in Calstock, but they are missing the connection. I'd like to know if anyone has found the connection, Thanks, Lorna

Hi List I was contacted by a lady researching the Oke family several months ago. I have lost her contact details. If the lady in question reads this it may be worth contacting me off list as I have other documents that have now been transcribed Many thanks Malc McCarthy _taclowcoth@aol.com_ (mailto:taclowcoth@aol.com)