Ted! I'm always interested. Several years ago, I had a gfew moments with the Stoutenberg book and saw nothing related to Maritje Hansen and Jacob Stoutenberg. I thought that I probably overlooked something in my haste. But since then, more and more, I see various persons citing this marriage in that particular DRC. I did order the book. They did have it at Amazon but I will have to wait a couple of weeks for it for some reason. Thank you for your offer and if it's not to much trouble, I would appreciate anything you send. Elizabeth ted.snediker@comcast.net wrote: Elizabeth, If you can get a copy of Stoutenburgh's work at any price, I would be tempted to grab it. They are very scarce. He incorporated a great deal more than just Wolver Hollow records and went rather far afield to bring together a lot of genealogical information, not all of which is well documented. So this is by no means an original source, but is useful and interesting nonetheless. Meanwhile, since I have them at hand, I reviewed the two known transcripts of the Wolver Hollow records, and can tell you that there is no record there of your Jacob or of Marritje Hansen. There are a few Stoutenburgh records from the period 1838 to 1853, though, and if these are of interest I'd be happy to forward them to you. Regards, Ted Snediker -------------- Original message -------------- From: brookskcmo@aol.com > You can get a used copy at amazon.com for about $33. > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000NWNZ52/ref=sr_1_olp_38/104-5284752-19 > 27964?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176461694&sr=8-38 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: elizajohn@sbcglobal.net > To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:28 PM > Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Second question: Oyster Bay DRC, Stoutenberg and > Hansen > > > Does anyone know where I might locate a copy of a Documentary History of the DRC > Oyster Bay, by Stoutenberg, Henry A.? I am looking for the marriage records of > Maritje Hansen to Jacob Jansen Stoutenberg. I have seen this cited so many > ways, that I would like to find the original source. I know that Jacob > Stoutenberg and Maritje Hansen were witnesses for one of Maritje's > grandchildren, by, I believe , her son Johannes. But this wqs in Machackemech > or Minisinck. (The computer if on one floor and the records on another > nevertheless, I believe this is reasonably accurate. Again, any and all > responses are greatly appreciated. > > Elizabeth Johnson > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the message > ________________________________________________________________________ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL > at AOL.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Elizabeth, I read your interpretation of my explanation and got confused. Let me start again. "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, written in duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or parchment, words or letters of the alphabet being written between the two counterparts. The counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a wavy or indented line through these words or letters (hence the name "indenture"), and each party received one of the counter parts. In case of later dispute as to the authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be fitted together to settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania page 141.) Also see Theodore Plucknett"s, A Concise History of the Common Law at pages 612-613. Although I have a copy of Van Der Linden's Institutes of the Laws of Holland and Xeroxed extensive portions of Simon Van Leeuwen's Commentaries of the Roman Dutch Law, neither of these book speaks to the format of legal instruments. An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered into an employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed upon consideration. The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911) It is the subject matter and terms of the individual contract, which are important not the format in which the contract is drafted. When I began working with the rangers at the Saratoga National Historical Park, they used to get all excited when they found an "Indenture", until they got tired of my asking them if the instrument were a deed, a mortgage, or an employment contract. Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as specific as saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color of the paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls into the "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are you reading. Sincerely, Leslie -------------- Original message -------------- From: Elizabeth Johnson <elizajohn@sbcglobal.net> > Thank you! As any good lawyer does, you have forced me to look at the bigger > picture. It does help because I had narrowed my thinking down to the issue of > indenture only in the terms of the person and the two most frequently seen > applications of the word in both Dutch and English histories, excluding legal > documents, and genealogies: The training of the person such as in the case of a > minor, who would be placed in an apprenticeships for training in exchange for > whatever was specified, money or labour, for a specific amount of time. It > seems that these are usually referred to by historians as apprenticeships such > as "he apprenticed to...." which then hints at the nature of the endenture. The > general term would be indenture. The other usage, which is what I see when, > reading through quite a few genealogies, is the word "indenture" combined with > servant. I believe that in the 17th Century, this particular type of indenture > placed the person into a state of servitude and > allowed them to be categorized as an indentured servant, for a period of time > in exchange for something of monetary value which in that era was often a > passage from Europe to a determined destination. > > What you are saying is, I believe, is what I originally thought but somehow > lost in my narrow focus: The discussion that started this train of thought was > the classification of several persons as endentured servants based upon the name > of the person or persons being combined with the words "indentured to". Being > indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a contract > or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of the > indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the general > term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written but > unless specifically stated in the documented itself, being indentured was not > synonymous with the word servant. > > I'm frequently rushing when I pose a question to the list and should probably > wait until I have the time to fully explain myself. > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > Elizabeth, > > An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number of types > of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of chattel, > and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, which are > commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned > instruments can also be written in other formats. > > What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is written, but > rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is important is > whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of chattel or > an employment contract. > > Hope that this helps. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie Potter > PA Atty ID # 16580 > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a chance > > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from perhaps > a > > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own > > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage to > > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called > but > > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but > by > > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second > > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or > is > > it possible to tell? > > > > Any help is appreciated > > > > Elizabeth > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Let me correct a typo of mine which I now notice in the last post I made. > An additional support for the genealogy of the family can be found in > the will of Augustine Herman, of Cecil County, Maryland. One clause > mentions Nicholas and Judith Varlet, two siblings of his then-deceased > wife Judith Varlet, as his brother- and sister-in-law. Herman also > mentions Nicholas Varlet's "Sonn & his In Law Nicholas Bayard" --who > is a step-son of Nicholas Varlet by virtue of his 1656 marriage to > Anna Stuyvesant, whose previous marriage was with Samuel Bayard. I typed "Judith" once too many times here. Augustine Herman's wife was JANNETJE Varlet, not Judith. Judith Varlet married Nicholas Bayard. I think that's all the typos for today. Liz J

Elizabeth, An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number of types of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of chattel, and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, which are commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned instruments can also be written in other formats. What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is written, but rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is important is whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of chattel or an employment contract. Hope that this helps. Sincerely, Leslie Potter PA Atty ID # 16580 -------------- Original message -------------- From: Elizabeth Johnson <elizajohn@sbcglobal.net> > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a chance > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from perhaps a > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage to > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called but > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but by > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or is > it possible to tell? > > Any help is appreciated > > Elizabeth > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Elizabeth, If you can get a copy of Stoutenburgh's work at any price, I would be tempted to grab it. They are very scarce. He incorporated a great deal more than just Wolver Hollow records and went rather far afield to bring together a lot of genealogical information, not all of which is well documented. So this is by no means an original source, but is useful and interesting nonetheless. Meanwhile, since I have them at hand, I reviewed the two known transcripts of the Wolver Hollow records, and can tell you that there is no record there of your Jacob or of Marritje Hansen. There are a few Stoutenburgh records from the period 1838 to 1853, though, and if these are of interest I'd be happy to forward them to you. Regards, Ted Snediker -------------- Original message -------------- From: brookskcmo@aol.com > You can get a used copy at amazon.com for about $33. > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000NWNZ52/ref=sr_1_olp_38/104-5284752-19 > 27964?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176461694&sr=8-38 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: elizajohn@sbcglobal.net > To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com > Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:28 PM > Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Second question: Oyster Bay DRC, Stoutenberg and > Hansen > > > Does anyone know where I might locate a copy of a Documentary History of the DRC > Oyster Bay, by Stoutenberg, Henry A.? I am looking for the marriage records of > Maritje Hansen to Jacob Jansen Stoutenberg. I have seen this cited so many > ways, that I would like to find the original source. I know that Jacob > Stoutenberg and Maritje Hansen were witnesses for one of Maritje's > grandchildren, by, I believe , her son Johannes. But this wqs in Machackemech > or Minisinck. (The computer if on one floor and the records on another > nevertheless, I believe this is reasonably accurate. Again, any and all > responses are greatly appreciated. > > Elizabeth Johnson > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the message > ________________________________________________________________________ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL > at AOL.com. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

And again, thank you for your time! What you are saying is what I understood, I think it is my writing and purpose of writing that is confusing you, I think. I'm attempting an explanation of why the connection of the word "indentured" to any given person should not be assumed to mean that the person is an indentured servant. You said: An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered into an employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed upon consideration." and "The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911)" You said " Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as specific as saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color of the paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls into the "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are you reading." I said "Being indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a contract or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of the indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the general term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written Is this not the same? But then, I said "but unless specifically stated in the document itself, being indentured was not synonymous with the word servant." and this needs rewording. I know what I was trying to say and missed. I meant wished to put across the idea that if a person was said to be indentured to another person, but the terms of the indenture are not given,it meant only that there was a contract or an agreement between these persons that could cover have covered a myriad of topics only one of which would be the agreement to become an indentured servant. The use of the word indenture without the terms of the Indenture being given tells nothing more than that there is an agreement between the parties and an obligation is established in the indenture. How is this different? Too wordy? Did I miss the point totally? What am I leaving out? It's not just you, I had my husband read it and he was confused until I explained the whole thing to him and this is what I didn't want to have to do. Perhaps I could just say that an indenture is a form of a contract and without knowing the contents of the contract, one knows nothing about the purpose or obligation inherent in the contract. Thus, the combining of the two words indentured and servant based upon a document associating the word "indentured" with a name means nothing unless the contents of the indenture are known. Case in point, a man contracts with another for the production and delivery of beer for an 8 year period in exchange for certain goods and properties. In these same documents, this is later referred to as an indenture. The next reference I see to this in another book, refers to the man as an indentured servant and cites the above reference. And the other option is to trash what I have written and start over....Bah Humbug.. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time. Elizabeth lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: Elizabeth, I read your interpretation of my explanation and got confused. Let me start again. You said: "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, written in duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or parchment, words or letters of the alphabet being written between the two counterparts. The counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a wavy or indented line through these words or letters (hence the name "indenture"), and each party received one of the counter parts. In case of later dispute as to the authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be fitted together to settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania page 141.) "An indenture was originally a contract between two or more parties, written in duplicate or counter part all on the same piece of paper or parchment, words or letters of the alphabet being written between the two counterparts. The counterparts were then separated by cutting or tearing along a wavy or indented line through these words or letters (hence the name "indenture"), and each party received one of the counter parts. In case of later dispute as to the authenticity of either of the counterparts they could be fitted together to settle the question. (Ladner of Conveyancing in Pennsylvania page 141.) Also see Theodore Plucknett"s, A Concise History of the Common Law at pages 612-613. Although I have a copy of Van Der Linden's Institutes of the Laws of Holland and Xeroxed extensive portions of Simon Van Leeuwen's Commentaries of the Roman Dutch Law, neither of these book speaks to the format of legal instruments. An "indentured servant" is merely a man or a woman, who has entered into an employment contract for a specific term of years for an already agreed upon consideration. The parent of a minor, who has apprenticed his or her child to a master, has also entered into an education/employment contract for a specific period of time for stated consideration. These were called Indentures of Apprenticeship. (Black's Law Dictionary p. 911) It is the subject matter and terms of the individual contract, which are important not the format in which the contract is drafted. When I began working with the rangers at the Saratoga National Historical Park, they used to get all excited when they found an "Indenture", until they got tired of my asking them if the instrument were a deed, a mortgage, or an employment contract. Saying that a legal document is an "indenture" is as specific as saying that the said instrument was written on pink paper. The color of the paper, as well as, the format in which an instrument is written falls into the "so what" category. What is important is what kind of a contract are you reading. Sincerely, Leslie -------------- Original message -------------- From: Elizabeth Johnson > Thank you! As any good lawyer does, you have forced me to look at the bigger > picture. It does help because I had narrowed my thinking down to the issue of > indenture only in the terms of the person and the two most frequently seen > applications of the word in both Dutch and English histories, excluding legal > documents, and genealogies: The training of the person such as in the case of a > minor, who would be placed in an apprenticeships for training in exchange for > whatever was specified, money or labour, for a specific amount of time. It > seems that these are usually referred to by historians as apprenticeships such > as "he apprenticed to...." which then hints at the nature of the endenture. The > general term would be indenture. The other usage, which is what I see when, > reading through quite a few genealogies, is the word "indenture" combined with > servant. I believe that in the 17th Century, this particular type of indenture > placed the person into a state of servitude and > allowed them to be categorized as an indentured servant, for a period of time > in exchange for something of monetary value which in that era was often a > passage from Europe to a determined destination. > > What you are saying is, I believe, is what I originally thought but somehow > lost in my narrow focus: The discussion that started this train of thought was > the classification of several persons as endentured servants based upon the name > of the person or persons being combined with the words "indentured to". Being > indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a contract > or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of the > indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the general > term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written but > unless specifically stated in the documented itself, being indentured was not > synonymous with the word servant. > > I'm frequently rushing when I pose a question to the list and should probably > wait until I have the time to fully explain myself. > > lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: > Elizabeth, > > An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number of types > of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of chattel, > and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, which are > commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned > instruments can also be written in other formats. > > What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is written, but > rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is important is > whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of chattel or > an employment contract. > > Hope that this helps. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie Potter > PA Atty ID # 16580 > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Elizabeth Johnson > > > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a chance > > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from perhaps > a > > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own > > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage to > > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called > but > > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but > by > > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second > > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or > is > > it possible to tell? > > > > Any help is appreciated > > > > Elizabeth > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Good show Howard. An additional support for the genealogy of the family can be found in the will of Augustine Herman, of Cecil County, Maryland. One clause mentions Nicholas and Judith Varlet, two siblings of his then-deceased wife Judith Varlet, as his brother- and sister-in-law. Herman also mentions Nicholas Varlet's "Sonn & his In Law Nicholas Bayard" --who is a step-son of Nicholas Varlet by virtue of his 1656 marriage to Anna Stuyvesant, whose previous marriage was with Samuel Bayard. Here is the pertinent clause from Herman's will. It pertains to that part of Herman's property which is in and near New York: "And for the Said Estate within and without New Yorke Aforesaid I doe hereby Ordaine Constitute & Authorize my loveing Brother in Law Mr. Nicholas Varlett and his Sonn & his In Law Nicholas Bayard with my Sister in law Mrs. Judith Varlett for to be Lawfull Overseers & Adminstrators there In Trust Untill the Competent Age or Marriage Aforesaid" This will was transcribed and contributed to USgenweb archives by a descendant, Katharine Harbury, who also comments, "there is no date or anything to show that this was probated in court" --which makes sense as Herman had later written a will superceding it. > > I think Frans Heijbloem came to New Amsterdam --he appears in the NA > > baptism register: > > 1651 Jan 01; Nicolaes Verleth; Abraham; Abraham Verleth, Francosicus > > Heybloom, Judith Verleth > > Of course, as we've seen in the past, one did not have to be present > to be a "witness". Note that there were 3 witnesses named. Good point; I had forgotten to consider that. It still makes me curious though --Francina Varlet married Pieter (Franss) Heijbloem, yet here is mentioned the one who is apparently Pieter's father. > But > I should add that (from the Hoffman article, Rec. 71:117-119) the parents > of Casper Varlet were Nicholas Varlet and Francina Jacobs and the parents > of Judith Tintenier were Abraham Tintenier and his first wife (unknown) -- > his second wife was Magdalena. And there were no daughters called Magdalena. > I also note from the Deposition of Judith Varlet (Rec. 71:117) that she > says she was about 15 when they sailed in 1650. So, it seems to me > the Judith bp. in 1629 might have died young, and there could have been > another Judith born about 1635. Possibly, although no additional child by that name appears in the index to the Amsterdam Doopregister, and there's a pretty consistent string of Varlet children baptized in this era who do appear in that index. Whatever age she was, Judith did marry and have a child rather late (in 1666 and 1669); perhaps Judith simply remembered herself as being younger on the voyage. Checking the baptism books of Amsterdam for 1635 (as opposed to the index) and searching the burial records would also be useful. Speaking of Judith --I only found one child for Judith and her husband Nicholas Bayard. I wonder if anyone knows of more. Thanks again & best wishes, Liz J

And THANK YOU! I've have been tring for awhile now to find this book and had checked Amazon in the past. Had it not be for the link you sent, I couldn't have found it. Amazon is somewhat picky on their spelling and titles and I forgot to put "Nederdvytsche gemeente" I tried first under Documentary History of the DRC of Oyster Bay,= and got a big zero! Then twisted it into other versions and still got nothing. For any other searchers in the future, this book is carried under "A docvmentary history of the Nederdvytsche gemeente. Dutch congregation, of..." Elizabeth Johnson brookskcmo@aol.com wrote: You can get a used copy at amazon.com for about $33. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000NWNZ52/ref=sr_1_olp_38/104-5284752-1927964?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176461694&sr=8-38 -----Original Message----- From: elizajohn@sbcglobal.net To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:28 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Second question: Oyster Bay DRC, Stoutenberg and Hansen Does anyone know where I might locate a copy of a Documentary History of the DRC Oyster Bay, by Stoutenberg, Henry A.? I am looking for the marriage records of Maritje Hansen to Jacob Jansen Stoutenberg. I have seen this cited so many ways, that I would like to find the original source. I know that Jacob Stoutenberg and Maritje Hansen were witnesses for one of Maritje's grandchildren, by, I believe , her son Johannes. But this wqs in Machackemech or Minisinck. (The computer if on one floor and the records on another nevertheless, I believe this is reasonably accurate. Again, any and all responses are greatly appreciated. Elizabeth Johnson ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, is JOHN a last name--like JAHN?? Have Catherine JAHN-JOHN in early NY--Alice Gross ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

It is..although in this case, elizajohn, its a combination,,, my husband is a Johnson, I was a John. I haven't worked much on that particular line but have see a "Catherine Jahn" and know there is some relationship but more than that, I can't say at the moment. I will keep this in mind when I go through my papers. This should be in the very near future as I've bought a new file cabinet specifically for my genealogical pursuits. With it came the determination to put these piles of paper in order. Thank you for noticing and asking! Elizabeth Alummiisland@aol.com wrote: Hi, is JOHN a last name--like JAHN?? Have Catherine JAHN-JOHN in early NY--Alice Gross ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you! As any good lawyer does, you have forced me to look at the bigger picture. It does help because I had narrowed my thinking down to the issue of indenture only in the terms of the person and the two most frequently seen applications of the word in both Dutch and English histories, excluding legal documents, and genealogies: The training of the person such as in the case of a minor, who would be placed in an apprenticeships for training in exchange for whatever was specified, money or labour, for a specific amount of time. It seems that these are usually referred to by historians as apprenticeships such as "he apprenticed to...." which then hints at the nature of the endenture. The general term would be indenture. The other usage, which is what I see when, reading through quite a few genealogies, is the word "indenture" combined with servant. I believe that in the 17th Century, this particular type of indenture placed the person into a state of servitude and allowed them to be categorized as an indentured servant, for a period of time in exchange for something of monetary value which in that era was often a passage from Europe to a determined destination. What you are saying is, I believe, is what I originally thought but somehow lost in my narrow focus: The discussion that started this train of thought was the classification of several persons as endentured servants based upon the name of the person or persons being combined with the words "indentured to". Being indentured, in itself, does not and did not mean more than being in a contract or a legal agreement with another person or persons with the terms of the indenture determined by document itself. In short, an indenture is the general term for the format in which any number of agreements could be written but unless specifically stated in the documented itself, being indentured was not synonymous with the word servant. I'm frequently rushing when I pose a question to the list and should probably wait until I have the time to fully explain myself. lbpotter@comcast.net wrote: Elizabeth, An "Indenture" is just one of many types of format in which any number of types of contracts can be written. Deeds, mortgages, contract for the sale of chattel, and employment contracts are just a few of the types of instruments, which are commonly written in the "Indenture" format. All of the aforementioned instruments can also be written in other formats. What is significant is not the format in which the instrument is written, but rather the subject matter with which instrument deals. What is important is whether the instrument a deed, a mortgage, a contract for the sale of chattel or an employment contract. Hope that this helps. Sincerely, Leslie Potter PA Atty ID # 16580 -------------- Original message -------------- From: Elizabeth Johnson > It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a chance > to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from perhaps a > little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own > trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage to > van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called but > not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but by > whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second > person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or is > it possible to tell? > > Any help is appreciated > > Elizabeth > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You can get a used copy at amazon.com for about $33. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000NWNZ52/ref=sr_1_olp_38/104-5284752-1927964?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176461694&sr=8-38 -----Original Message----- From: elizajohn@sbcglobal.net To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:28 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Second question: Oyster Bay DRC, Stoutenberg and Hansen Does anyone know where I might locate a copy of a Documentary History of the DRC Oyster Bay, by Stoutenberg, Henry A.? I am looking for the marriage records of Maritje Hansen to Jacob Jansen Stoutenberg. I have seen this cited so many ways, that I would like to find the original source. I know that Jacob Stoutenberg and Maritje Hansen were witnesses for one of Maritje's grandchildren, by, I believe , her son Johannes. But this wqs in Machackemech or Minisinck. (The computer if on one floor and the records on another nevertheless, I believe this is reasonably accurate. Again, any and all responses are greatly appreciated. Elizabeth Johnson ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Does anyone know where I might locate a copy of a Documentary History of the DRC Oyster Bay, by Stoutenberg, Henry A.? I am looking for the marriage records of Maritje Hansen to Jacob Jansen Stoutenberg. I have seen this cited so many ways, that I would like to find the original source. I know that Jacob Stoutenberg and Maritje Hansen were witnesses for one of Maritje's grandchildren, by, I believe , her son Johannes. But this wqs in Machackemech or Minisinck. (The computer if on one floor and the records on another nevertheless, I believe this is reasonably accurate. Again, any and all responses are greatly appreciated. Elizabeth Johnson

It wasn't too long ago that I asked a similar question and didn't get a chance to thank those who responded. I'm still on the same subject, but from perhaps a little different angle. If one boarded a ship in Texel, and paid for his own trip and had a contract for specific services, for a specific time and wage to van Rensselaer, it is my impression that this is a contract as it is called but not an indenture. A second party, on the same ship, has his passage paid but by whom is unknown. He may have paid his own. The next mention of this second person is when he draws his wages from the colony. Contract or indenture? or is it possible to tell? Any help is appreciated Elizabeth

Hi Liz and all, From: "E Johnson" <iris.gates@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Casper Verlet family > Howard, > > Your lineup of the children of Caspar Varlet looks pretty good. > > There was also a Francina, who married Peter Heijbloem on 2 August > 1642, Amsterdam. > In Amsterdam marriage index, file #458, p. 128 there is: Francina > Varlet, assisted by her father Casper Verlet, with Peter Heijbloem > assisted by his father Francois Heijbloem. > > The full text of the marriage intentions would probably give Francina's age. It would also be interesting if it also gave where she was born. > I think Frans Heijbloem came to New Amsterdam --he appears in the NA > baptism register: > 1651 Jan 01; Nicolaes Verleth; Abraham; Abraham Verleth, Francosicus > Heybloom, Judith Verleth Of course, as we've seen in the past, one did not have to be present to be a "witness". Note that there were 3 witnesses named. >> Also, in Amsterdam I found the bap. of Anneken, the daughter of >> Daniel Verlet and Sara Stafmaker (the same wife the article shows) >> on 19 June 1636. I wonder if she is the Anna Verlet who married >> George Hack. > > Anna Varlet, the wife of George Hack, is Anna the daughter of Caspar. Right. I'd forgotten you had presented evidence of that in our last discussion. <snip> > I think Anna was probably one of the oldest of Caspar's children. > > Revising your lineup: > > Abraham bp. 6 Oct 1616 in Utrecht > --wit: Guillaume Tintenier, Magdaliene, wid. of Abraham Tintenier > Nicholas > Guillaume > > Francina, who married Peter Heijbloem on 2 August 1642, Amsterdam > > Anna wife of Joris/George Hack and later of Nicholas Boot > > Jannetje born in Utrecht [NA RDC marr. record] > > Marija bp. 7 Nov 1627 in Amsterdam > Judit bp. 8 Nov 1629 in Amsterdam > Catrijna bp. 2 Sept 1631 in Amsterdam > Jacus bp. 24 Nov 1633 in Amsterdam > Catrijna bp. 22 June 1636 in Amsterdam > Sara bp. 1 May 1639 in Amsterdam Good. Thanks. I had thought that there was room for one or maybe two more children between Abraham and Marija. So, now we have them. Of course, the order of nos. 2 thru 5 are "uncertain", as they say. But I should add that (from the Hoffman article, Rec. 71:117-119) the parents of Casper Varlet were Nicholas Varlet and Francina Jacobs and the parents of Judith Tintenier were Abraham Tintenier and his first wife (unknown) -- his second wife was Magdalena. I also note from the Deposition of Judith Varlet (Rec. 71:117) that she says she was about 15 when they sailed in 1650. So, it seems to me the Judith bp. in 1629 might have died young, and there could have been another Judith born about 1635. Regards, Howard hswain@ix.netcom.com

Hi Irv, I guess you and I must be cousins somehow. I also have all three families in my line. Cheers, Doug, in AZ. **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************8 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Irv Emmons" <irv@emmonsfamily.us> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:54 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] RAPALJE, BERGEN, and MIDDAG families >I have all three families in my line. > > Rapalje: > Bergen: > Middagh: >

Donna May I please have all three. I am very remis in reading my mail this week Thank you Barb Barb ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

Steve and all other Adam Brouwer experts. I must confess that I know nothing about Adam Brouwer. The Brouwer in my database is Alida Brouwer who married John Beekman. John was born in 1625 in Hasselt, Overyssel, and died in 1684. John's father Henry Beekman was born in Cologne, the Rhine, on 14 Sep 1585. >From the dates and the places of birth, when compared to those set forth below for John Brouwer, it appears that there is a strong possibility that Adam Brouwer was Alida's father. Can anyone support or disprove this supposition? Thanks, Barbara Barbara L. de Mare, Esq. Historian, genealogist and attorney 155 Polifly Road Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201) 567-9440 office BarbaradeMare@yahoo.com (home) http://historygenealogyesq.blogspot.com/ ----- Original Message ---- From: Donna Stark <donnaStarkKy@fewpb.net> To: dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:27:28 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Early records of Adam Brouwer Thank you so much for this info. I had known very little about Adam before this. I knew he was from Cologne, but that was all. Again, Thanks. Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:35 AM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Early records of Adam Brouwer > I've never seen any of this detail in my online searching and > thought it would be of interest to Adam Brouwer descendants. Usually > you just find a brief summary of the information below. If I read this > correctly, in 1641 Adam Brouwer sailed for Brazil on the ship Swol (we > all knew this). The ship was under the direction of the merchant Willem > de Haes. After some time in Brazil, Adam was ordered to proceed to Fort > St. Louis in Marinhao (currently Sao Luis). Marinhao is a state of > Brazil and Sao Luis is on an island off the coast. The Dutch captured > Sao Luis from the Portuguese in 1641 after the Portuguese captured it > from the French in 1615. The Dutch lost it back to the Portuguese in > 1645. Evidently Adam was part of the force that captured Sao Luis or > was a reinforcement. Note that entry 141a and 141b were written on the > same day. 141a was cancelled and replaced by 141b. I'm guessing there > was some legal reason to change it from an assignment to a power of > attorney. Also of interest is that this is another piece of > documentation other than Adam's marriage banns that show him as being > from Cologne. It's also possible that he was residing in Amsterdam at > the time he sailed for Brazil since he was sailing for the chamber of > Amsterdam and Geurt Servaessen was a resident of Amsterdam. The final > entry is the purchase of the house and garden from Hendrick Jansen. > > > > Steve Brewer > > > > > > Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642-1647, Volume II /Translated > and annotated by Arnold J. F. Van Laer; edited with added indexes by > Kenneth Scott and Kenn Stryker-Rodda > > > > Assignment by Adam Brouwer to Geurt Servaessen of his claim on the West > India Company > > > > [141a] Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New > Netherland, appeared Adam Brouwer, from Ceulen, a soldier (sailed Ao. > 1641 in the ship Swol to Brazil for the chamber of Amsterdam; his > supercargo was Willem de Haes), who in the presence of the undersigned > witnesses assigns and transfers in full and free ownership to Guert > Servaesz, living in Amsterdam in Papenbrugh alley, his wages earned in > the service of the honorable directors of the West India Company, > chamber of Amsterdam, at Marinhan, amounting to the sum of one hundred > and eighty-nine guilders, which said sum of one hundred eighty-nine > guilders he requests the honorable directors to be pleased to pay to the > aforesaid Geurt Servaesz at Amsterdam. The said sum having been paid, > he, Adam Brouwer, frees the honorable gentlemen from all demands > hereafter to be made on that account by himself or any of his heirs. > Done in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 21st of February 1645. > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer aforesaid > > Willem Bredenbent > > Pauwlus Van der Becke > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > The previous document is cancelled. > > > > Power of attorney from Adam Brouwer to Geurt Servaessen to collect wages > due from the West India Company > > > > [141b] Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New > Netherland, appeared Adam Brouwer, from Ceulen, a soldier (sailed Ao. > 1641 in the ship Swol to Brazil for the chamber of Amsterdam), who > appoints and empowers, as he does hereby, Geurt Servasz, at Amsterdam, > [residing] in Papenbrigh alley, in "The Whalebone," to demand and > collect in his name from the honorable directors of the General > Chartered West India Company, chamber at Amsterdam, all such sums of > money as are still due to him, Adam Brouwer, by their honors [and were] > earned in Brazil, where he received no settlement, having been ordered > to proceed to Marinham. On payment of said money by the honorable > directors, the aforesaid Geurt Servaesz may [in token] of the receipt > execute a discharge, which shall be valid, the principal promising to > hold valid whatever shall be done in the matter aforesaid by the > attorney. The original hereof in the record is signed by Adam Brouwer > and the witnesses hereto invited, the 21st of February 1645, in Fort > Amsterdam in New Netherland. > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer aforesaid > > Willem Bredenbent > > Pauwlus Van der Becke > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > Power of attorney from Adam Brouwer to Govert Loockermans to receive > money due him by the West India Company > > > > [149j] Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New > Netherland, appeared Adam Brouwer, from Cologne, a soldier who sailed > for the Chamber of Amsterdam to Brazil in the year 1641, in the ship > Swol, of which ship Willem de Haes was merchant, and who in the presence > of the undersigned witnesses appoints and empowers, as he does hereby, > Mr. Govert Loockermans, merchant on the ship De Jager, to demand and > collect and receive from the honorable directors of the General > Chartered West India Company one hundred and eighty-nine guilders, > earned by him, Adam Brouwer, of their honors at Fort St. Louis de > Merinhan, as appears by the account annexed; on payment of which sum by > the honorable directors to the above mentioned Loockmans, he is > empowered to give a receipt therefore which shall avail. He, the > principal, promises to hold and cause to be held valid whatever shall be > done in the matter by his attorney. Done in Fort Amsterdam in New > Netherland, the 21st of September 1646. The original record hereof was > signed by Adam Brouwer and by Adriaen van Tienhoven and Gysbert Opdyc as > witnesses. > > > > This is the X mark of Adam Brouwer, made by himself > > Gysbert ope Dyck > > Adriaen van Tienhoven both witnesses > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > Contract of sale from Hendrick Jansen to Adam Brouwer of a house and > garden on Manhattan Island > > > > [141c] On this day, date underwritten, Hendrick Jansen from > Jeveren, locksmith, and Adam Brouwer have in love and friendship, in the > presence of the witnesses hereto invited, agreed and contracted about > the purchase of a certain house and lot for a garden situated on the > island of Manhatans, formerly occupied by Jeuriaen Roodolf. Hendrick > Jansen from Jeveren sells the aforesaid house and lot to Adam Brouwer > above mentioned, who also acknowledges that he has bought the same, with > all that is fastened by earth and nail, in true and full ownership, on > which house and garden Adam shall pay within three months from date > twenty-five guilders, which shall be the last payment. In witness and > token of the truth this is signed by the parties and the witnesses > hereto invited, in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 21st of > February 1645. > > > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer > > Heindreick Jansz > > Willem Breidenbent > > Pauwlus Van der Becke > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-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 DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you so much for this info. I had known very little about Adam before this. I knew he was from Cologne, but that was all. Again, Thanks. Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brewer" <slbrewer@fuse.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:35 AM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Early records of Adam Brouwer > I've never seen any of this detail in my online searching and > thought it would be of interest to Adam Brouwer descendants. Usually > you just find a brief summary of the information below. If I read this > correctly, in 1641 Adam Brouwer sailed for Brazil on the ship Swol (we > all knew this). The ship was under the direction of the merchant Willem > de Haes. After some time in Brazil, Adam was ordered to proceed to Fort > St. Louis in Marinhao (currently Sao Luis). Marinhao is a state of > Brazil and Sao Luis is on an island off the coast. The Dutch captured > Sao Luis from the Portuguese in 1641 after the Portuguese captured it > from the French in 1615. The Dutch lost it back to the Portuguese in > 1645. Evidently Adam was part of the force that captured Sao Luis or > was a reinforcement. Note that entry 141a and 141b were written on the > same day. 141a was cancelled and replaced by 141b. I'm guessing there > was some legal reason to change it from an assignment to a power of > attorney. Also of interest is that this is another piece of > documentation other than Adam's marriage banns that show him as being > from Cologne. It's also possible that he was residing in Amsterdam at > the time he sailed for Brazil since he was sailing for the chamber of > Amsterdam and Geurt Servaessen was a resident of Amsterdam. The final > entry is the purchase of the house and garden from Hendrick Jansen. > > > > Steve Brewer > > > > > > Register of the Provincial Secretary, 1642-1647, Volume II /Translated > and annotated by Arnold J. F. Van Laer; edited with added indexes by > Kenneth Scott and Kenn Stryker-Rodda > > > > Assignment by Adam Brouwer to Geurt Servaessen of his claim on the West > India Company > > > > [141a] Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New > Netherland, appeared Adam Brouwer, from Ceulen, a soldier (sailed Ao. > 1641 in the ship Swol to Brazil for the chamber of Amsterdam; his > supercargo was Willem de Haes), who in the presence of the undersigned > witnesses assigns and transfers in full and free ownership to Guert > Servaesz, living in Amsterdam in Papenbrugh alley, his wages earned in > the service of the honorable directors of the West India Company, > chamber of Amsterdam, at Marinhan, amounting to the sum of one hundred > and eighty-nine guilders, which said sum of one hundred eighty-nine > guilders he requests the honorable directors to be pleased to pay to the > aforesaid Geurt Servaesz at Amsterdam. The said sum having been paid, > he, Adam Brouwer, frees the honorable gentlemen from all demands > hereafter to be made on that account by himself or any of his heirs. > Done in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 21st of February 1645. > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer aforesaid > > Willem Bredenbent > > Pauwlus Van der Becke > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > The previous document is cancelled. > > > > Power of attorney from Adam Brouwer to Geurt Servaessen to collect wages > due from the West India Company > > > > [141b] Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New > Netherland, appeared Adam Brouwer, from Ceulen, a soldier (sailed Ao. > 1641 in the ship Swol to Brazil for the chamber of Amsterdam), who > appoints and empowers, as he does hereby, Geurt Servasz, at Amsterdam, > [residing] in Papenbrigh alley, in "The Whalebone," to demand and > collect in his name from the honorable directors of the General > Chartered West India Company, chamber at Amsterdam, all such sums of > money as are still due to him, Adam Brouwer, by their honors [and were] > earned in Brazil, where he received no settlement, having been ordered > to proceed to Marinham. On payment of said money by the honorable > directors, the aforesaid Geurt Servaesz may [in token] of the receipt > execute a discharge, which shall be valid, the principal promising to > hold valid whatever shall be done in the matter aforesaid by the > attorney. The original hereof in the record is signed by Adam Brouwer > and the witnesses hereto invited, the 21st of February 1645, in Fort > Amsterdam in New Netherland. > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer aforesaid > > Willem Bredenbent > > Pauwlus Van der Becke > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > Power of attorney from Adam Brouwer to Govert Loockermans to receive > money due him by the West India Company > > > > [149j] Before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, secretary of New > Netherland, appeared Adam Brouwer, from Cologne, a soldier who sailed > for the Chamber of Amsterdam to Brazil in the year 1641, in the ship > Swol, of which ship Willem de Haes was merchant, and who in the presence > of the undersigned witnesses appoints and empowers, as he does hereby, > Mr. Govert Loockermans, merchant on the ship De Jager, to demand and > collect and receive from the honorable directors of the General > Chartered West India Company one hundred and eighty-nine guilders, > earned by him, Adam Brouwer, of their honors at Fort St. Louis de > Merinhan, as appears by the account annexed; on payment of which sum by > the honorable directors to the above mentioned Loockmans, he is > empowered to give a receipt therefore which shall avail. He, the > principal, promises to hold and cause to be held valid whatever shall be > done in the matter by his attorney. Done in Fort Amsterdam in New > Netherland, the 21st of September 1646. The original record hereof was > signed by Adam Brouwer and by Adriaen van Tienhoven and Gysbert Opdyc as > witnesses. > > > > This is the X mark of Adam Brouwer, made by himself > > Gysbert ope Dyck > > Adriaen van Tienhoven both witnesses > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > Contract of sale from Hendrick Jansen to Adam Brouwer of a house and > garden on Manhattan Island > > > > [141c] On this day, date underwritten, Hendrick Jansen from > Jeveren, locksmith, and Adam Brouwer have in love and friendship, in the > presence of the witnesses hereto invited, agreed and contracted about > the purchase of a certain house and lot for a garden situated on the > island of Manhatans, formerly occupied by Jeuriaen Roodolf. Hendrick > Jansen from Jeveren sells the aforesaid house and lot to Adam Brouwer > above mentioned, who also acknowledges that he has bought the same, with > all that is fastened by earth and nail, in true and full ownership, on > which house and garden Adam shall pay within three months from date > twenty-five guilders, which shall be the last payment. In witness and > token of the truth this is signed by the parties and the witnesses > hereto invited, in Fort Amsterdam in New Netherland, the 21st of > February 1645. > > > > This is the AB mark of Adam Brouwer > > Heindreick Jansz > > Willem Breidenbent > > Pauwlus Van der Becke > > Acknowledged before me, Cornelis van Tienhoven, Secretary > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > >

Dear List, I thought that those of you who live in up state New York might find this Heritage Hunter's program to be of interest. Sincerely, Leslie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Peck" <patpeck2@verizon.net> To: <nysarato@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:47 AM Subject: [NYSARATO] Dutch Barn Presentation > Steve Jones, survey coordinator for the Dutch Barn Survey, will be > presenting on how to identify Dutch Barns in the Community Room at the > Saratoga Springs Public Library on Saturday, April 14 at 1:30pm. Please > pass the word out to anyone that you think would be interested in > attending this meeting. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYSARATO-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message