This is just a suggestion Ayre Richard Northallerton XXIV 437 #COMMENT handwritten amendment XXIV to original volume XIV with ? and 24 also written in Given that the district for XIV 437 would be Lincoln, which looks nothing like Northallerton, it seems that at some point various attempts have been made to correct the volume. It could be argued that following TKB 6(am) there ought to be two lines, one with XIV and one with XXIV, with a #COMMENT(2) line. As it is clear that XXIV is a correction for XIV I suggest that application of TKB 6(am) is not appropriate. The ? and 24 seem worthy of mention, but only in a comment line, I suggest. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kate McGee" <kmcgee@webone.com.au> To: <freebmd-admins@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:30 PM Subject: 1845B4-A-0102.jpg Help and advice please, I have never come across an entry like this and am not sure of how to transcribe it. Line 3 of the scan shows Ayre Richard Northallerton ? XIV 437 Above the volume no. is written XXIV which is correct for Northallerton and alongside it is numeric 24. I think the ? was written at the same time. It's possible the district is incorrect but the page number is within the range for Northallerton. Cheers Kate