Oh, this is irritating -- not y'all at all -- I sent an email through at 4:06 p.m. and it has still not come through. I cc it to Hamilton co list, too. Anyway, I copied/pasted my email here & am trying again to get the thing to go through quickly!! Pavla Chandler Subj: HAMILT/BUTLER Cos. -DILL again/1900 data on Matthew Date: 1/16/2006 4:06:43 PM Central Standard Time From: CHANDLERPRIME To: OHBUTLER-L@rootsweb.com CC: OHHAMILT-L@rootsweb.com Ok, wanted to know for myself re Matthew, etc. So, following up on my last email I looked up Matthew DILL on the 1900 census: 1900 Crosby, Hamilton co, OH, enumerated 16 June 1900: 168 179 Mathew Dill, Head, W, M, born Mar 1841, 59, Widowed , b OH, parents b Pennsylvania, Ohio, Farmer George L. Dill, Son, W, M, born September 1880, 19, Single, b OH, parents b OH and IA, Farm Laborer According to this Matthew was widowed, meaning he'd been married. He has a son born in Sept of 1880, 3 months after that 1880 census of Ann, Mathew, Mary and Charles was done. So as of A, M, M and C being together in 1880, at that very time a woman/wife was carrying Matthew's child, 3 months away from birth. Per this, I figure Mary was Mathew's wife vs a sister. Too, I figure this Mary must have died before the 1900 census was done. Death records might confirm this or disprove this. So might getting George, the son's, death record - as it could name his parents. Anyway, wanted to post this through. This is theory only now, that Mary was wife not sister -- but I think it's likely. Just need more research to know for sure. Pavla Chandler, TX There's always more information out there, just sometimes takes a bit to find it. Too, my theory above is only that - theory. It too could be disproven, for example if George L was written down as son but really was not biological son. Still, I kinda think George was Matthew's son, so... always more possibilities!