On 14 Feb 2005 at 15:13, MAGSTAT@aol.com wrote: > Either of these? Unfortunately, no. Both of those are too old. The earliest he could have been born is 1798 and more likely sometime between then and 1824. Thus, he might be in the 1830 and would show up as 20-30 yrs of age, or in the 1840 as 30-40. Thanks, Sandy