thanks very much. I have the password etc for the land records. The tract list for some reason does not go up to liber K which is the time I am looking for. It appears to stop at Liber I (1776). But thanks I will check out the tract list. There was more than one Hog Quarter at the time. Maybe the sale to David Bowen will show up earlier than Liber K. thanks again. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Just <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:18 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter /Cropper/John Lyon Liz - Have you used ? You need a password for the site, if you've never used it before. In the Worcester land tract index, there are several deeds listed involving Hog/Hogg Quarter/Quarters. If you followed the ownership of the tract(s), it might answer your questions. Lisa Just On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I was able to find a reference to what may be the same Hog Quarter > which was left by Ebenezer Cropper to his son William. This will > is from the ocean city museum site: (I have no idea if the > original Hog Quarter was sw/s Governors Branch!) > > Cropper, Edmund > > Edmond Cropper 21 July 1799w. 30 August 1799p > > To son Edmond Cropper, lands sw/s Governors Branch called Hog > Quarters: > part of a tract Mills Neglect. Ex. > > To Son Josiah Cropper balance Mills Neglect and part of Addition. > > To son John Cropper tract purchased of Edward Hammon, part tract > Delight. > > To daughters Leah Holland and Sarah Renyolds. > > To daughters Emila Cropper, Elizabeth Cropper, Sabrina Cropper. > > Son Ebenezer, deceased. > > Witness: William Cropper. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:24 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps > because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. > They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I > think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I > can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. > Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's > household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of > assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is > listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might > well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so > flagged > would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), > living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so > there's no evidence there as to location. > > The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In > Worcester, they are: > > Taxpayer > Names of Lands (if any) > Acres > Slaves > Males and Females under 8 / Value > Males and Females 8 -14 / Value > Males from 14-45 /Value > Females from 14-36 /Value > Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value > Plate Ounces / Value > Horses > Black Cattle > Value > Value of other Property > Total Amount > Assessment thereon > White Inhabitants > Male > Female > > In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. > But you take what's dealt. > > As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the > original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no > land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 > land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in > Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by > cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the > absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors > were a little more casual. > > With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question > was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and > patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 > 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), > who > had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD > Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was > asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I > have > for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I > don't > see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo > Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that > my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of > conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but > all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is > shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is > somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what > Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > > Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no > land > name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land > owned > by someone else?< > > It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease > agreement > specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always > mean > that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the > assessor > wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in > 1782 > or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the > list > for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease > agreements > are recorded as deeds. > > It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or > worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that > was not on > > land he was working for himself. > > Good hunting, > Judy > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the > body of > the message > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Members: I have read with great interest your postings of property listed as HOG Quarters and HOGG Quarters. It appears that this may have been several acres and or passed down to a lot of different folks. My ancestral records show that my GGGGG Grandfather Sothey KING bought land listed as HOGG Quarters on March 18, 1776. The deed showed that he was living in Worcester Co., MD at the time. He may have even lost the land later. Actually, I'm not trying to get into the mix of things, just thought it interesting that so many people had ownership of this named property. Regards, Michelle

I was able to find a reference to what may be the same Hog Quarter which was left by Ebenezer Cropper to his son William. This will is from the ocean city museum site: (I have no idea if the original Hog Quarter was sw/s Governors Branch!) Cropper, Edmund Edmond Cropper 21 July 1799w. 30 August 1799p To son Edmond Cropper, lands sw/s Governors Branch called Hog Quarters: part of a tract Mills Neglect. Ex. To Son Josiah Cropper balance Mills Neglect and part of Addition. To son John Cropper tract purchased of Edward Hammon, part tract Delight. To daughters Leah Holland and Sarah Renyolds. To daughters Emila Cropper, Elizabeth Cropper, Sabrina Cropper. Son Ebenezer, deceased. Witness: William Cropper. ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:24 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so flagged would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so there's no evidence there as to location. The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In Worcester, they are: Taxpayer Names of Lands (if any) Acres Slaves Males and Females under 8 / Value Males and Females 8 -14 / Value Males from 14-45 /Value Females from 14-36 /Value Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value Plate Ounces / Value Horses Black Cattle Value Value of other Property Total Amount Assessment thereon White Inhabitants Male Female In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. But you take what's dealt. As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors were a little more casual. With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), who had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I have for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I don't see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks John. I have been through the Grantor and Grantee index for 1776-1783 period looking for David Bowen and have found nothing but I will do it again and also look for any cropper/crapper selling to a Bowen. It is easy to overlook something in those indexes. I have only found so far a deed to a "Grouse"? Bowen of Philadelphia by a Crapper. Also clarification on the 1783 tax list was very helpful. In other words, what we have is a census of adult males (probably over age 16) and female heads of household in 1783. That is at least better than nothing. Thanks again. I will inform the list if I can find any deeds for Hog Quarter. ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:24 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so flagged would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so there's no evidence there as to location. The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In Worcester, they are: Taxpayer Names of Lands (if any) Acres Slaves Males and Females under 8 / Value Males and Females 8 -14 / Value Males from 14-45 /Value Females from 14-36 /Value Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value Plate Ounces / Value Horses Black Cattle Value Value of other Property Total Amount Assessment thereon White Inhabitants Male Female In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. But you take what's dealt. As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors were a little more casual. With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), who had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I have for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I don't see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

> What was so special about black cows? > > Elizabeth __________ Elizabeth, I recently got into this discussion with my cousin who says our moms' taught us to call root beer floats "black cows," when we were growing up, but I seem to remember using the term "brown cow" more often. I think the difference in terms is mostly regional, but that probably wouldn't explain two sisters calling them something different. I'm going to check with my (older) brothers to see what they remember -- my guess is that my cousin's memory is better than mine. But whatever we called them -- brown cow or black cow -- they indeed were (and still are) very special, especially on hot days. :-) See, some things never change! ;-) Dave K

Good question. Anyone know? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. What was so special about black cows? Elizabeth In a message dated 7/7/2010 10:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so flagged would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so there's no evidence there as to location. The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In Worcester, they are: Taxpayer Names of Lands (if any) Acres Slaves Males and Females under 8 / Value Males and Females 8 -14 / Value Males from 14-45 /Value Females from 14-36 /Value Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value Plate Ounces / Value Horses Black Cattle Value Value of other Property Total Amount Assessment thereon White Inhabitants Male Female In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. But you take what's dealt. As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors were a little more casual. With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), who had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I have for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I don't see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

What was so special about black cows? Elizabeth In a message dated 7/7/2010 10:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so flagged would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so there's no evidence there as to location. The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In Worcester, they are: Taxpayer Names of Lands (if any) Acres Slaves Males and Females under 8 / Value Males and Females 8 -14 / Value Males from 14-45 /Value Females from 14-36 /Value Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value Plate Ounces / Value Horses Black Cattle Value Value of other Property Total Amount Assessment thereon White Inhabitants Male Female In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. But you take what's dealt. As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors were a little more casual. With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), who had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I have for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I don't see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The unusual Wo tract index stops at Volume I, if I recall aright. I've never been sure why it does, or even exists. I've processed all deed books through 1776, and do not find a David Bowen anywhere in them. In fact, there were 22 distinct tracts titled HOG QUARTER in Worcester before 1783 and two so-named later. Sorting on those which would have been in Queponco, among other little tricks, etc., allows this one to be pegged as the target without testing all those deeds in the tract index. I tend to imagine that a "Governors Branch" transcription was a misreading of "Wouldhave Branch", on the head of which the patent HOG QUARTER was desribed to be, after neighbor William Wouldhave. I've not run into "Governors Branch", in any case. Again, too, as Judy noted earlier, the party taxed for a tract would (or at least could) have been credited with it in the 1783 lists. So the fact of a dry hole in the deeds is not at all conclusive; Bowen could well have been leasing, few of which instruments survive in the county land records. I'd say. in fact, based on the evidence at hand and the lack of a deed, that he probably wasn't the owner. Barring other avenues, like intestate probate actions and unrecorded deeds, of course ... But the facts in hand mostly trump that sort of guessing. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter /lisa just thanks very much. I have the password etc for the land records. The tract list for some reason does not go up to liber K which is the time I am looking for. It appears to stop at Liber I (1776). But thanks I will check out the tract list. There was more than one Hog Quarter at the time. Maybe the sale to David Bowen will show up earlier than Liber K. thanks again. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Just <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:59:18 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter /Cropper/John Lyon Liz - Have you used ? You need a password for the site, if you've never used it before. In the Worcester land tract index, there are several deeds listed involving Hog/Hogg Quarter/Quarters. If you followed the ownership of the tract(s), it might answer your questions. Lisa Just On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I was able to find a reference to what may be the same Hog Quarter > which was left by Ebenezer Cropper to his son William. This will > is from the ocean city museum site: (I have no idea if the > original Hog Quarter was sw/s Governors Branch!) > > Cropper, Edmund > > Edmond Cropper 21 July 1799w. 30 August 1799p > > To son Edmond Cropper, lands sw/s Governors Branch called Hog > Quarters: > part of a tract Mills Neglect. Ex. > > To Son Josiah Cropper balance Mills Neglect and part of Addition. > > To son John Cropper tract purchased of Edward Hammon, part tract > Delight. > > To daughters Leah Holland and Sarah Renyolds. > > To daughters Emila Cropper, Elizabeth Cropper, Sabrina Cropper. > > Son Ebenezer, deceased. > > Witness: William Cropper. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:24 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps > because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. > They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I > think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I > can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. > Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's > household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of > assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is > listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might > well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so > flagged > would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), > living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so > there's no evidence there as to location. > > The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In > Worcester, they are: > > Taxpayer > Names of Lands (if any) > Acres > Slaves > Males and Females under 8 / Value > Males and Females 8 -14 / Value > Males from 14-45 /Value > Females from 14-36 /Value > Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value > Plate Ounces / Value > Horses > Black Cattle > Value > Value of other Property > Total Amount > Assessment thereon > White Inhabitants > Male > Female > > In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. > But you take what's dealt. > > As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the > original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no > land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 > land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in > Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by > cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the > absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors > were a little more casual. > > With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question > was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and > patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 > 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), > who > had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD > Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was > asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I > have > for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I > don't > see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo > Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that > my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of > conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but > all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is > shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is > somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what > Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > > Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no > land > name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land > owned > by someone else?< > > It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease > agreement > specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always > mean > that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the > assessor > wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in > 1782 > or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the > list > for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease > agreements > are recorded as deeds. > > It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or > worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that > was not on > > land he was working for himself. > > Good hunting, > Judy > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the > body of > the message > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can't say with certainty that I have the answer but I offer my guess that the black cattle may have been the Welsh Black, cattle bred in Wales and so highly prized for their efficacy as both beef and dairy cattle that they were used as currency in the British Isles.  It would be logical that colonists would import such cattle.  Thus, if the cattle were so prized, of course it had to be taxed. Becky ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 2:17:05 PM Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Good question.  Anyone know? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. What was so special about black cows? Elizabeth

The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so flagged would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so there's no evidence there as to location. The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In Worcester, they are: Taxpayer Names of Lands (if any) Acres Slaves Males and Females under 8 / Value Males and Females 8 -14 / Value Males from 14-45 /Value Females from 14-36 /Value Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value Plate Ounces / Value Horses Black Cattle Value Value of other Property Total Amount Assessment thereon White Inhabitants Male Female In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. But you take what's dealt. As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors were a little more casual. With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), who had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I have for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I don't see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy</HTML> *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Liz - Have you used <mdlandrec.net>? You need a password for the site, if you've never used it before. In the Worcester land tract index, there are several deeds listed involving Hog/Hogg Quarter/Quarters. If you followed the ownership of the tract(s), it might answer your questions. Lisa Just On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:40 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I was able to find a reference to what may be the same Hog Quarter > which was left by Ebenezer Cropper to his son William. This will > is from the ocean city museum site: (I have no idea if the > original Hog Quarter was sw/s Governors Branch!) > > Cropper, Edmund > > Edmond Cropper 21 July 1799w. 30 August 1799p > > To son Edmond Cropper, lands sw/s Governors Branch called Hog > Quarters: > part of a tract Mills Neglect. Ex. > > To Son Josiah Cropper balance Mills Neglect and part of Addition. > > To son John Cropper tract purchased of Edward Hammon, part tract > Delight. > > To daughters Leah Holland and Sarah Renyolds. > > To daughters Emila Cropper, Elizabeth Cropper, Sabrina Cropper. > > Son Ebenezer, deceased. > > Witness: William Cropper. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:24 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps > because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. > They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I > think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I > can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. > Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's > household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of > assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is > listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might > well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so > flagged > would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), > living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so > there's no evidence there as to location. > > The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In > Worcester, they are: > > Taxpayer > Names of Lands (if any) > Acres > Slaves > Males and Females under 8 / Value > Males and Females 8 -14 / Value > Males from 14-45 /Value > Females from 14-36 /Value > Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value > Plate Ounces / Value > Horses > Black Cattle > Value > Value of other Property > Total Amount > Assessment thereon > White Inhabitants > Male > Female > > In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. > But you take what's dealt. > > As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the > original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no > land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 > land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in > Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by > cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the > absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors > were a little more casual. > > With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question > was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and > patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 > 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), > who > had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD > Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was > asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I > have > for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I > don't > see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo > Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that > my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of > conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but > all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is > shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is > somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what > Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am > Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. > > > Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no > land > name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land > owned > by someone else?< > > It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease > agreement > specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always > mean > that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the > assessor > wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in > 1782 > or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the > list > for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease > agreements > are recorded as deeds. > > It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or > worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that > was not on > > land he was working for himself. > > Good hunting, > Judy > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the > body of > the message > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOWER- > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy</HTML>

Since I don't have Ruth Dryden's book on Worcester County, could someone help me please locate the land records for Hogs Quarter Queponco (1783 tax list owned by David Bowen). A David Bowen with wife Nancy sold part of Partnership to Outen Toadville 1806. I am trying to place a number of Bowens in this time period including this David, Levin (d. 1788 wife Rachel), Salathiel, Josiah, and Eli (wife Polly)d. 18 10 (who has brothers George and Whittington - also unplaced) Also when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else? Thanks in advance Liz

I am looking for information about Celia Pearson. I have absolutely no information about her yet,except she was married to Adam Bramble 25 Aug 1817. This information was found on Ancestry.com marriage records index for Dorchester Co., Maryland.,taken from License book No. 2, page 34. I have a hypothesis of my own ( but no proven sources ) about Adam and Celia Pearson. My Adam Bramble was born 1796, Dorchester Co., MD ( birth records) married Celia Pearson ( marriage index ) There is a very small "possibility" Celia "may" be the daughter of Stephen and Leder Pearson. or Labin and Mary Pearson both of these parents had daughters . Labin and Mary - dau., Alsindah Pearson b.10 Jan 1797 ( Chop. Parish records) Stephen and Leder - dau., Selah Pearson b. 8 Dec 1797 ( Chop. Parish records ) My Hypothesis ---- Adam #2 and Celia married 1817 ( fact ) and they had children It appears ( from the FEW records I can find ) that Celia may have died ( maybe between. 1826 and 1850 ) leaving Adam with abt. 5 young children. Listed below are my thought about who these children may have been ! 1. Benjamin b, abt 1819, Maryland 2. Adam #3 b. abt 1820 3. Jeremiah b. abt. 1821 4. Samuel ( maybe Samuel Zachariah ) b. abt 1825 5. Soloman ( maybe Soloman Fraizer ) b.abt 1828 there may also have been a daughter Lucinda ( Lucy) b. abt 1832 I based this hypothesis on the 1850 and 1860 census records, Lakesville, Dorchester Co., MD. These young people ages 18 to 28 y/o are living together, without parents or other family. It is possible ( if these are indeed Adam and Celia's Children ) that Adam left these children with other family or maybe even alone. It is rumored that Celia Pearson was Native American and Adam was known as " Nanticoke Adam ", I have never found any records to prove that fact, it was told to me by my Mother and her family and if this is true it may be these children were shunned by other Bramble family and they pretty much raised themselves. There is also the possibility that Adam left his children in Dorchester County and moved to Virginia and started a new family and was married two more times. 1st to Mary J. Ambrose, the young widow of Michael Ambrose. According to the 1850 census Glochester, Va., Adam was 54 y/o and Mary J. was 23 y/o and they were married that year ( 1850 ) I don't know if Mary J. died, but 1860 census Adam now 63 y/o appears to be married to 30 y/o Anna Picket. Anna's death cert. states she was born 1830 Norfolk, Va and died Tanners Creek, Norfolk, Va. 1892, Widow of Adam Bramble. If this information sound familiar to anyone I would like to hear from you Sorry about the rambling information about Adam, but I was hoping maybe you may recognize some of this info and be able to help me with the Pearson family and the Bramble family. Thanks, Sylvia

I am passing this message along from another site. Hi all! I'm Brian Baull, son of Jack Arthur Baull, grandson of Arthur Eugene Baull. I'm working on tracing my Baull family name back as far as I can...so far it goes back like this: Brian Keith Baull (me) 1967-present Jack Arthur Baull (dad) 1938-1973 Arthur Eugene Baull (grandfather) 1905-1983 Ezekiel David Baull (great grandfather) 1870-1925 Lemuel Bull (great great grandfather) -- and here's where the spelling of the last name is in question... If you are a part of this family tree and I haven't been in touch with you yet, please email me at [email protected] I would love to hear from you! Brian K. Baull Dagsboro, DE

Hi all, I need help in finding an old wharf that was around in 1915 . The place is named Olvenon Wharf, in VA. In June of 1915, my Great, Great Grandfather was taking a ferry from Washington DC back down to his home in Cople Parish in Westmoreland Co. VA. His name was Joseph Walter Herbert, born in the year1852, in Charles Co, Md. He moved to VA and was an Oysterman his whole life. He was a proud man, hard working and a loving husband, father and grandfather. He found out that he had cancer, and as it was 1915, there was little the doctors could do for him. So after a visit to his doctors in Washington DC on June 29 of that year, he was told that they could do no more for him, in pain, and dying, he jumped overboard and drowned in the water he loved so much. I am not sure if his body was ever found, but I do know that the place of burial is listed as Olvenon Wharf in VA. I have Googled the name and have no idea where this place is. Does anyone out there in the group have an idea, or know where to look to find it. Thanks for any and all help. And have a great 4th of July. Terri in VA.

Hi Flo, Here's a link to this book in Google books (full view): http://books.google.com/books?id=zIdBAAAAYAAJ& Let me know if you have trouble with it, but it should work. Best wishes, Liz J On 3 July 2010 12:47, Florence LaDene Leader <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Liz > I would like to know the address for this infor on the Huguenots. > > Would you be so kind as to send me this address. > Thank myou for your h > lp > Flo Dennis >

Thank you so much for this info. :-} Grace

Hi Liz I would like to know the address for this infor on the Huguenots. Would you be so kind as to send me this address. Thank myou for your h lp Flo Dennis --- On Mon, 3/15/10, E Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > From: E Johnson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [LDR] "Memorials Of The Huguenots In America: With Special Reference To Their Emigration To Pennsylvania" (Readable Online) > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 3:26 PM > Freda, > > If a book in google books is presented in a full-text > version, there will be > a link at the top right, that allows one to see the paes in > plain text. From > there it is possible to copy-paste into any text editor or > word processor, > format to your liking, and print as usual from your own > computer. > > Full-text books in google books are also downloadable > --again I think that > possibility should appear on the top right. Then, once you > have > downloadedand saved to your hard drive, you should have > several options for > printing some or all of the pages, depending on what > programs your computer > has available. > > There's probably a third option that allows printing direct > from your > browser, but my printer (not a great model) does not > cooperate with my > browser, so I never attempt that task. > > Good luck, > Liz J > > On 15 March 2010 09:36, Freda Daniel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Is there a secret to printing from these Google books? > I haven't been > > successful. > > > > Freda > > > *************************************** > QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or > UNSUBSCRIBING? > Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message >

A starting point for such questions is Vol. 630 of the Archives of Maryland On-Line: http://aomol.net/000001/000630/html/index.html Beginning around p. 568 is the rundown of Worcester Election Districts, their creations, changes over time, and some data on boundaries. Looking forward from 1850 you'll find some explicit discussion of E.D. 8 as affected in 1867 by the creation of Wicomico Co. As to what it looked like in 1850, you may or may not be able to deduce what you want from that, but you have there the references to the relevant laws within which the specifications would have been laid out. That might involve further communication with the MSA as to how to get those sources. John -----Original Message----- From: Roy C. Pollitt <[email protected]> Here's one that I have been mulling over for years: My gr-gr-grandfather is listed in the 8th Election District, Worcester County MD (1850 Census). Anyone have any idea where one might find a description, or better still, a map of the 8th District in 1850?