>>>>No. "his father" is John Crow, dec'd. >>>> >>>>"...that I (Richard Risley) bought of John Crow dec'd... as may >>>>appear by a deed from his father." >>>> >>>>Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> >>> >>>Thank you for sharing your interpretation. It's interesting that >>>four out of five people share that interpretation, because it's one >>>that hadn't occurred to me before. I still don't think, based on the >>>text, that it's the most plausible interpretation. Furthermore, the >>>evidence shows that John Crow deeded 330 acres in East Hartford to >>>Richard Risley in 1682. John Crow was the largest landowner in >>>Hartford, and he died in 1686. >>> http://tinyurl.com/klpcj >>>So John Crow was living when he deeded land to Richard Risley. >>> >>>Ukes >> >>And thus *dead* by 1716, the date of the deed in which he was >>identified as "dec'd". > > Absolutely. > >>Thus far the stated facts do not support >>anything beyond a similarity of surname for the Risleys you mention. > > If the pronoun "his" as used in "butted north on land of Jeremiah > Risley as may appear by a deed from his father" (as used in the > Richard Risley - Samuel Risley deed) refers to the father of > Jeremiah Risley (which I believe is a reasonable interpretation), > and the land of Jeremiah Risley that is being referred to is the > land that Richard Risley deeded to Jeremiah Risley three days > earlier (which is compatible with the abutting property owners) then > the two deeds, read together, probably provide *direct* evidence > that Jeremiah Risley was the son of Richard Risley. > > This isn't a "slam dunk". Rather, it requires piecing information > from different sources together, like pieces of a puzzle, to come to > a conclusion. But it's the search for the pieces of the puzzle and > the challange of attempting to put them in the correct place, that > makes genealogy interesting to me. > > As I mentioned previously, there is strong *indirect* evidence that > Jeremiah was the son of Richard. The "father of modern genealogy" > Donald Lines Jacobus, in his article "The Risley Family of > Connecticut", The American Genealogist, vol 25, p. 233-246 (Oct. > 1949), indicated that "there there can be no doubt that the Risleys > of the next generation [including Jeremiah] were children of Richard > and Rebecca [(Adams) Risley]". > >>However, your family, your research, your conclusions. > > IMO, one of the greatest contributions the Internet can make to > genealogy is providing a forum for sharing background information > that helps put genealogical information in context. Properly > interpreting the meaning of documents and knowing relevant laws, > rules and customs allow us to put the information we do have in > better context can (sometimes) allow us to establish family > relationships that would otherwise be unrecognized. Which, I > suppose, is a big part of what "genealogy methods" should be about. > > Jerry Ukes <[email protected]> All very well and good, Jerry, but you didn't ask us for our opinion on ALL the evidence (or even the preponderance); you asked us what we thought *A* specific deed said. To recap: 4 out of 5 responders said the wording did not appear to support your conclusion. HTH Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>