Go with Fox Mulder: "Trust no one". There are just all sorts of ways in which old mischief can confound us. Here's the deal. Not many "original original" wills survive from that era, meaning the original handwritten submissions actually entered by the testators. There are some, though, and for Somerset there's a supply of them in their original boxes at the MSA. I don't know if this one is among them, and haven't checked. So, for the wills across the Province the conventional source is the Prerogative Court will books, as transcribed by that court's clerks in Annapolis. These should have been all transcripts of the original wills as submitted from the counties as part of the court's estate handling process. These are what you see at the "Huntington" site, from a filming of these dating from the 1940s. These are also the volumes originally used by Baldwin and Cotton for their Calendar of Wills abstracts (not this filming of course, but evidently from the paper volumes themselves at the then-Hall of Records). In addition, the counties maintained a separate transcription of the wills of the county. In Somerset, these are now found in the county clerk Esme Bayly's series (EB volumes). In some cases the Bayly transcripts (made in the late 18th century) were re-dos of even then disintegrating earlier volumes in the courthouse. Presumbably the original county volumes, like the Prerogative Court versions, were copied from the "original originals", too, but because they were separate transcriptions from those made at Annapolis, one must be aware there could be differences. And when Bayly went through and re-did them, there's another opportunity for differences/mistakes to creep in. The Keddie transcripts were done from the county's EB series. There are similar local transcripts from Worcester: the "JW" series. Baldwiin and Cotton have many known errors. All in all, a pretty good example of why a finding aid is only a pointer to getting the original, from which one can draw one's own conclusions. Over the years I have also found a number of differences between the EB volumes and the Prerogative Court versions. And some cases in which I'm just glad to have found an "original original" to break ties or to correct other transcriptional gaffes. Sometimes one must simply consider all the evidence from all sources to decide what was meant, and that you're facing a clerical error. I have found other cases in which the testator's name was in error in the MD Calendar of Wills. And I have certainly found errors in all other transcripts, including the "original" PC wills. All this generality aside, I see that my tract histories for ISLINGTON, COWS QUARTERS and CORDS LOT have them in the ownership of John Smith from the early 1700s, and then bequeathed by James Smith (I probably used the assertions of the MD Calendar of Wills, I imagine; there is only so much time in the day to check everything). Unless there had been some other mechanism by which a James Smith had come by these, it looks from what you have found to be more likely that John Smith was the 1739/40 testator. So: thanks. Looks like I should correct my files. Note also here MD Wills 23:099 (also recorded as Worcester Wills JW2:006), of carpenter John Smith in 1743, bequeathing these same to his daughter Elizabeth. He didn't last long after getting these from his father. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 9:07 am Subject: [LDR] Look at the original will - example I did not know how to explain the below contradiction in the name of the husband of Elizabeth Smith. (Keddie also refers to James Smith). This is an example of the reason why we should check the original will whenever possible. After a giant struggle with the Huntington site, I managed to find Smith's will of 1739-40 below (vol. 22, folio 172). Voila - it said very clearly I JOHN Smith, Sr. of Somerset County etc. Of course here's the problem - was this copy on the Huntington site also a copy of an original will and were Cotton and Keddie looking at an entirely different copy. What a headache.

In this case, the tax lists are helpful since there is not a single James Smith in the tax lists for Bogerternorton through 1740 or Baltimore 100 for that matter.. There is however a likely John Smith in Bogerternorton . I agree, I am calling this one for JOHN Smith! ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:09:16 -0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [LDR] Look at the original will - example Go with Fox Mulder: "Trust no one". There are just all sorts of ways in which old mischief can confound us. Here's the deal. Not many "original original" wills survive from that era, meaning the original handwritten submissions actually entered by the testators. There are some, though, and for Somerset there's a supply of them in their original boxes at the MSA. I don't know if this one is among them, and haven't checked. So, for the wills across the Province the conventional source is the Prerogative Court will books, as transcribed by that court's clerks in Annapolis. These should have been all transcripts of the original wills as submitted from the counties as part of the court's estate handling process. These are what you see at the "Huntington" site, from a filming of these dating from the 1940s. These are also the volumes originally used by Baldwin and Cotton for their Calendar of Wills abstracts (not this filming of course, but evidently from the paper volumes themselves at the then-Hall of Records). In addition, the counties maintained a separate transcription of the wills of the county. In Somerset, these are now found in the county clerk Esme Bayly's series (EB volumes). In some cases the Bayly transcripts (made in the late 18th century) were re-dos of even then disintegrating earlier volumes in the courthouse. Presumbably the original county volumes, like the Prerogative Court versions, were copied from the "original originals", too, but because they were separate transcriptions from those made at Annapolis, one must be aware there could be differences. And when Bayly went through and re-did them, there's another opportunity for differences/mistakes to creep in. The Keddie transcripts were done from the county's EB series. There are similar local transcripts from Worcester: the "JW" series. Baldwiin and Cotton have many known errors. All in all, a pretty good example of why a finding aid is only a pointer to getting the original, from which one can draw one's own conclusions. Over the years I have also found a number of differences between the EB volumes and the Prerogative Court versions. And some cases in which I'm just glad to have found an "original original" to break ties or to correct other transcriptional gaffes. Sometimes one must simply consider all the evidence from all sources to decide what was meant, and that you're facing a clerical error. I have found other cases in which the testator's name was in error in the MD Calendar of Wills. And I have certainly found errors in all other transcripts, including the "original" PC wills. All this generality aside, I see that my tract histories for ISLINGTON, COWS QUARTERS and CORDS LOT have them in the ownership of John Smith from the early 1700s, and then bequeathed by James Smith (I probably used the assertions of the MD Calendar of Wills, I imagine; there is only so much time in the day to check everything). Unless there had been some other mechanism by which a James Smith had come by these, it looks from what you have found to be more likely that John Smith was the 1739/40 testator. So: thanks. Looks like I should correct my files. Note also here MD Wills 23:099 (also recorded as Worcester Wills JW2:006), of carpenter John Smith in 1743, bequeathing these same to his daughter Elizabeth. He didn't last long after getting these from his father. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 9:07 am Subject: [LDR] Look at the original will - example I did not know how to explain the below contradiction in the name of the husband of Elizabeth Smith. (Keddie also refers to James Smith). This is an example of the reason why we should check the original will whenever possible. After a giant struggle with the Huntington site, I managed to find Smith's will of 1739-40 below (vol. 22, folio 172). Voila - it said very clearly I JOHN Smith, Sr. of Somerset County etc. Of course here's the problem - was this copy on the Huntington site also a copy of an original will and were Cotton and Keddie looking at an entirely different copy. What a headache. *************************************** 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

Is there some place to find the histories of the tracts? I love the names of the tracts. Did they also name their homes? Are there any old maps of Lewes DE? Jackie Helmke [email protected] This message has been screened by Norton ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [LDR] Look at the original will - example > In this case, the tax lists are helpful since there is not a single James > Smith in the tax lists for Bogerternorton through 1740 or Baltimore 100 > for that matter.. There is however a likely John Smith in Bogerternorton . > I agree, I am calling this one for JOHN Smith! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:09:16 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [LDR] Look at the original will - example > > Go with Fox Mulder: "Trust no one". > > There are just all sorts of ways in which old mischief can confound us. > > Here's the deal. Not many "original original" wills survive from that > era, meaning the original handwritten submissions actually entered by > the testators. There are some, though, and for Somerset there's a > supply of them in their original boxes at the MSA. I don't know if > this one is among them, and haven't checked. > > So, for the wills across the Province the conventional > source is the Prerogative Court will books, as transcribed by that > court's clerks in Annapolis. These should have been all transcripts of > the original wills as submitted from the counties as part of the > court's estate handling process. These are what you see at the > "Huntington" site, from a filming of these dating from the 1940s. > These are also the volumes originally used by Baldwin and Cotton for > their Calendar of Wills abstracts (not this filming of course, but > evidently from the paper volumes themselves at the then-Hall of > Records). > > In addition, the counties maintained a separate transcription of the > wills of the county. In Somerset, these are now found in the county > clerk > Esme Bayly's series (EB volumes). In some cases the Bayly transcripts > (made in the late 18th > century) were re-dos of even then disintegrating earlier volumes in the > courthouse. Presumbably the original county volumes, like the > Prerogative Court versions, were copied from the "original originals", > too, but because they were separate transcriptions from those made at > Annapolis, one must be aware there could be differences. And when > Bayly went through and re-did them, there's another opportunity for > differences/mistakes to creep in. The Keddie transcripts were done > from the county's EB series. There are similar local transcripts from > Worcester: the "JW" series. > > Baldwiin and Cotton have many known errors. All in all, a pretty good > example of why a finding aid is only a pointer to getting the original, > from which one can draw one's own conclusions. Over the years I have > also found a number of differences between the EB volumes and the > Prerogative Court versions. And some cases in which I'm just glad to > have found an "original original" to break ties or to correct other > transcriptional gaffes. > > Sometimes one must simply consider all the evidence from all sources to > decide what was meant, and that you're facing a clerical error. > > I have found other cases in which the testator's name was in error in > the MD Calendar of Wills. And I have certainly found errors in all > other transcripts, including the "original" PC wills. > > All this generality aside, I see that my tract histories for ISLINGTON, > COWS QUARTERS and CORDS LOT have them in the ownership of John Smith > from the early 1700s, and then bequeathed by James Smith (I probably > used the assertions of the MD Calendar of Wills, I imagine; there is > only so much time in the day to check everything). Unless > there had been some other mechanism by which a James Smith had come by > these, it looks from what you have found to be more likely that John > Smith was the 1739/40 testator. > > So: thanks. Looks like I should correct my files. > > Note also here MD Wills 23:099 (also recorded as Worcester Wills > JW2:006), of carpenter John Smith in 1743, bequeathing these same to > his daughter Elizabeth. He didn't last long after getting these from > his father. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, Jul 26, 2010 9:07 am > Subject: [LDR] Look at the original will - example > > > I did not know how to explain the below contradiction in the name of > the husband > of Elizabeth Smith. (Keddie also refers to James Smith). This is an > example of > the reason why we should check the original will whenever possible. > After a > giant struggle with the Huntington site, I managed to find Smith's will > of > 1739-40 below (vol. 22, folio 172). Voila - it said very clearly I > JOHN Smith, > Sr. of Somerset County etc. Of course here's the problem - was this > copy on > the Huntington site also a copy of an original will and were Cotton and > Keddie > looking at an entirely different copy. What a headache. > > > *************************************** > 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