HI Anne, certainly does look like you're onto something here! I've found another 'coincidence' that links these two as well. I was looking for the Brindles in 1861 census and found them in Gaskill Street (26). James isn't with them (which is good as I've already found him I Barn Street, in the same lodging house as Elizabeth Kay, who he married in 1862). In 1866 James and Elizabeth have a son, Thomas and his birth certificate gives their address as Gaskill Street(31). The 1871 census shows both families still there. In 1881 the Hulmes have moved to Vallets Buildings and George Brindle is a widower living as a boarder with the Laycock's in Waterloo Street. Again, this doesn't prove anything, but it's one more "coincidence" between these two. Cheers, Pete -----Original Message----- From: pneanne [mailto:pne.anne@ntlworld.com] Sent: 25 May 2006 20:35 To: ENG-LAN-BOLTON-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ENG-LAN-BOLTON] JAMES HULME Hi Pete, I thought I was on to something. I have been trying to find information about the witness at George Brindle and Mary Butterworth's wedding in 1835.. He is Thomas Thompson. I have checked the 1841 Census, and the first Thomas Thompson, born about 1811, that I looked at lived in Dawson Lane. This is the street where the Hulme family lived in 1841. He had been transcribed on Ancestry as Thos Thompson, but when I looked at the census image, the name looks like Thomason, so I am not sure if it is him, but it is certainly a coincidence.