-----Original Message----- From: Roy [mailto:roy.cox@btinternet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:14 PM To: 'norman.lee1' Subject: RE: [OEL] unusual occupation reprised Good Evening All - http://www.motco.com/map/81006/ If you know the address, this map will show it. If this page 81006 is wrong, go to the home page http://www.motco.com/ And navigate to what you might think it is. VERY GOOD site Cowman is a quite interesting title, don't you think - Obviously keeps cows but not probably as a farmer? I've come across this "Job Description" several times and I wonder if it indicates a person with a place where animals could be kept in readiness for the market; I think the word would apply to bulls and yearlings mainly, rather than cows, as they would be not be sold unless it were for beef ('ole Beef)! The London markets at that time may not have included young milk cows I think? Lambeth had become a borough by the creation of an act of parliament in 1832; in 1861 it must have been a growing concern as Audry says, which is reflected in my 1870 gazetteer with 3 pages of it's description. The manufacturing establishments were very numerous and very various, employing the greater part of its inhabitants. There were also wharves for lime, coal and timber, and piers to accommodate river steamers. Kind Regards June & Roy http://www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: norman.lee1 [mailto:norman.lee1@virgin.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:05 PM To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [OEL] unusual occupation reprised An observation on the location as well as the occupation(s) - from what I remember of Lambeth, who would have thought that such a short time ago (historically speaking) a place could change so much! I was more familiar with the Lambeth of the 1960s and it was certainly on its way down then although, like many of the London suburbs at the time, you could see signs of the glories of yesteryear. What is more, these glories would have postdated the 1860s of the man you mention with most of the houses probably dating from 1880-1910. The time you mention must have been when, in the neighbouring parish, the Camberwell Beauty was still flourishing. But, perhaps the upper middle class housing development had already begun and your man was supplying some of these larger prestigious households with their coal and coke requirements. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Lovegrove" <sandra@lovegrove.org.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: [OEL] unusual occupation reprised > Further to my recent posting about the "baker and coal dealer" in > Nottinghamshire, how about this is in Lambeth 1861: "Cowkeeper, coal > and coke > dealer". > (NB: "Cowkeeper" is definitely correct: this was previously his sole > occupation.) > > SANDRA LOVEGROVE > > Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. > Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

An observation on the location as well as the occupation(s) - from what I remember of Lambeth, who would have thought that such a short time ago (historically speaking) a place could change so much! I was more familiar with the Lambeth of the 1960s and it was certainly on its way down then although, like many of the London suburbs at the time, you could see signs of the glories of yesteryear. What is more, these glories would have postdated the 1860s of the man you mention with most of the houses probably dating from 1880-1910. The time you mention must have been when, in the neighbouring parish, the Camberwell Beauty was still flourishing. But, perhaps the upper middle class housing development had already begun and your man was supplying some of these larger prestigious households with their coal and coke requirements. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Lovegrove" <sandra@lovegrove.org.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: [OEL] unusual occupation reprised > Further to my recent posting about the "baker and coal dealer" in > Nottinghamshire, how about this is in Lambeth 1861: "Cowkeeper, coal and coke > dealer". > (NB: "Cowkeeper" is definitely correct: this was previously his sole > occupation.) > > SANDRA LOVEGROVE > > Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. > Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >

Further to my recent posting about the "baker and coal dealer" in Nottinghamshire, how about this is in Lambeth 1861: "Cowkeeper, coal and coke dealer". (NB: "Cowkeeper" is definitely correct: this was previously his sole occupation.) SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk

Can anyone tell me what a 'tranbel' is? It was used in a 1673 will. ....a drawn table in the parlour, a square table with the stool, fire pan, tongs, a tranbel, a joined chair ...... Annette

Annette, Audrey hints at dialect and spelling reflecting that - could this be "trammel" ? - i.e. the piece of iron that was placed in the chimney to hang pots and pans and implements on?. It certainly fits the context. Regards, Martyn Annette Mclean <dandamclean@xtra.co.nz> wrote: Can anyone tell me what a 'tranbel' is? It was used in a 1673 will. ....a drawn table in the parlour, a square table with the stool, fire pan, tongs, a tranbel, a joined chair ...... Annette ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com

Any chance of a scan? Just to make absolutely sure that's what it says. Can you also give us an idea where in the country this house was situated. It could help with dialect words. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Annette Mclean" <dandamclean@xtra.co.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:27 AM Subject: [OEL] Tranbel > > Can anyone tell me what a 'tranbel' is? It was used in a 1673 will. > ....a drawn table in the parlour, a square table with the stool, fire pan, tongs, a tranbel, a joined chair ...... > > Annette > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

Dear Audrey, Nearly! :-) There are two 'p's as well - one before and one after the [. But we know what you mean!! :-) Must be problems with the clocks? Cheers and thanks, Liz Quoting "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net>: > Dear All > > You'd never think that I check over my typing, would you. In my previous message I wrote > 'ap[urtena]ces'. It did need another n i.e. 'ap[urtena]nces'. Sorry for this. Put it down to the > aging process. > > Audrey > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mjcl > To: norman.lee1 ; OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > > > Audrey, > > That would fit - and the "p" is definitely similar to others. > > Regards > > Martyn > > "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: > Liz, Martyn and Narelle > > Had another look at line 14 and think it just could be 'apnces' i.e. > ap[purtena]ces. What do you think? > > Audrey > asnip

Dear All You'd never think that I check over my typing, would you. In my previous message I wrote 'ap[urtena]ces'. It did need another n i.e. 'ap[urtena]nces'. Sorry for this. Put it down to the aging process. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: mjcl To: norman.lee1 ; OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 Audrey, That would fit - and the "p" is definitely similar to others. Regards Martyn "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: Liz, Martyn and Narelle Had another look at line 14 and think it just could be 'apnces' i.e. ap[purtena]ces. What do you think? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "mjcl" To: Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:40 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > Liz, Audrey, Narelle, > > My typos are terrible!! > > But I do agree with your other interpretations. Consideration makes perfect sense in the circumstances, much better than my first attempt, but I cant get any further with the mystery word on line 14. > > Regards, > > Martyn > > emagar@hotkey.net.au wrote: > Hi Narelle and Martyn, > > Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software > (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other > transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional > comments, so here goes. > > A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are > just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the > original transcription. > > 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. > 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' > 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? > 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' > 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' > 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also line 25 re Cons'on) > 16. A typo - '&' not '7' > 17. 'full' not 'free' > 19. "made by' not 'made of' > 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that in line 9, page 1. > 21. '&' not 'and' > 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' > 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' > 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' > 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' > > In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think it's Cons[ideration]. > The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! > > I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that also looks > like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think it's the only > word left. > > I hope that helps rather than confuses! > > Cheers, > > Liz in Melbourne > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Audrey, That would fit - and the "p" is definitely similar to others. Regards Martyn "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: Liz, Martyn and Narelle Had another look at line 14 and think it just could be 'apnces' i.e. ap[purtena]ces. What do you think? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "mjcl" To: Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:40 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > Liz, Audrey, Narelle, > > My typos are terrible!! > > But I do agree with your other interpretations. Consideration makes perfect sense in the circumstances, much better than my first attempt, but I cant get any further with the mystery word on line 14. > > Regards, > > Martyn > > emagar@hotkey.net.au wrote: > Hi Narelle and Martyn, > > Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software > (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other > transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional > comments, so here goes. > > A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are > just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the > original transcription. > > 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. > 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' > 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? > 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' > 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' > 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also line 25 re Cons'on) > 16. A typo - '&' not '7' > 17. 'full' not 'free' > 19. "made by' not 'made of' > 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that in line 9, page 1. > 21. '&' not 'and' > 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' > 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' > 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' > 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' > > In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think it's Cons[ideration]. > The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! > > I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that also looks > like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think it's the only > word left. > > I hope that helps rather than confuses! > > Cheers, > > Liz in Melbourne > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Hi Audrey, No that's a different page. It's line 14 in the second page. The URL directly to that page is http://www.annforbes.org/hux2.html I think it says 13. ...Now this Ind[entu]re witnesseth 14. that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of (see also line 25 re Cons'on) Martyn had Com[m]on in both line 14 and 25 but it doesn't seem to fit the context very well. My suggestion of Cons[iderati]on fits the sense better and isn't beyond the writer's powers of abbreviation. But the word we're after is the missing one, or maybe two, word(s)in the middle of the line. Cheers, Liz Quoting "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net>: > Dear Liz > > I've no idea of whether I've got the right line, or even the right part of > the document but I have transcribed line 14 (or what I think is line 14) as > 'was with the app[urtenance]s Conveyed and assured unto and to the use of > the s[ai]d' > > Please enlighten me as to whether I am 'on the right line/s' with this one. > > Audrey > snip

Thanks Liz - will compare to all the others - many thanks again - Regards Narelle AntiVir Installed ----- Original Message ----- From: <emagar@hotkey.net.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:07 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > Hi Narelle and Martyn, > > Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software > (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other > transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional > comments, so here goes. > > A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are > just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the > original transcription. > > 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. > 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' > 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? > 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' > 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' > 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also line 25 re Cons'on) > 16. A typo - '&' not '7' > 17. 'full' not 'free' > 19. "made by' not 'made of' > 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that in line 9, page 1. > 21. '&' not 'and' > 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' > 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' > 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' > 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' > > In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think it's Cons[ideration]. > The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! > > I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that also looks > like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think it's the only > word left. > > I hope that helps rather than confuses! > > Cheers, > > Liz in Melbourne > > On Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:45 AM, mjcl [SMTP:mjcl@btinternet.com] wrote: > > Narelle, > > > > I've had a go - There are a couple of gaps - particularly in lines 22 & 24, but I hope that it > helps. > > > > > > > > 1. therein at the rate of to 15.p.c. p.a. payable half yearly > > > > 2. And whereas under & by intrest the s[ai]d [? sealed] two > > > > 3. several M[or]t[ga]ge Securiies therein now due & owing to the > > > > 4. s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. by the s[ai]d Thos. Huxley the Sum of £209.12.6 St[erlin]g > > > > 5. no more [margin] > > for principal & interst money which the s[ai]d T. h. doth hereby > > > > 6. admit & acknowledge - And whereas the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. > > > > 7. & Thos. H. are [? -----] desirous that the s[aid] last mentioned sum > > > > 8. should be paid to the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. - And to Enable him > > > > 9. for that purpose the s[ai]d Thos. H. has requested the s[ai]d J. B. & > > > > 10. A.G.P. to advance & lend to him the the Sum of £220. st[erlin]g > > > > 11. which they have agreed to do upon having the Repayment > > > > 12. of the same under interest as sftermentioned secured to > > > > 13. them by these presents - Now this Ind[entu]re witnesseth > > > > 14. that in Com[m]on the [?-----] of the Sum of £200.12.6 St[erlin]g > > > > 15. paid by the s[ai]d J B & AGP to the s[ai]d JGD ^ at the request & ^ of the direction > > > > 16. of the s[ai]d T. Huxley & the receipt whereof 7 that the same is > > > > 17. in free satisfaction & discharge of all moneys now due & > > > > 18. owing to him & alll claims & demand that may be > > > > 19. made of him [the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D - deleted] under & by virtue of the > > > > 20. s[ai]d sealed two sev[era]l [? -----] of [?Nele] or m[or]t[ga]ge or Either of them > > > > 21. he the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. doth hereby admit and acknowledge > > > > 22. & [? ----firm] the same & [? ----] paid thereof doth acquit > > > > 23. release & discharge as well the s[ai]d J B & AGP as the > > > > 24. s[aid] T. Huxley & [? t------ ------------------------] - And in > > > > 25. Com[m]on of the further Sum of £10.7.6 St[erlin]g to the s[ai]d T. Huxley > > > > 26. Paid by the s[ai]d JB & AGP tthe rec[eip]t whereof & the payment > > > > 27. of the s[ai]d sum of £209.12.6 to the s[ai]d Jas Geo Doyle making > > > > Best regards, > > > > Martyn > > > > > > I am hoping Liz in Melbourne and some others may be able to help me out again - there are 11 > pages of this one document relating to the transaction of land sales in the Hawkesbury NSW > Australia around the 1820's to 1830's. > > Two names in the first doc are HUXLEY & DOYLE, > > So far I have transcribed just a few lines - mostly inaccurate - but nevertheless: > > Line 1: whereas the rate of to 15 % pa [ per annum ] payable half yearly > > > > Line 2: And whereas ..interest...the -- -- two > > > > Line 3: several ( indemnities?) therein now due owing to the > > > > Line 4: -- Jas. Geo. D -- -- Thos Huxley the sum of $ 209.12.6 stg (pnds...where is the pound > sign in Micro word?) > > > > Line 5: -- -- for principal of (?) interest money while the T.H. doth hereby > > > > Line 6: -- acknowledge - And whereas the [ esquire?] Jas. Geo.D. > > > > The remainder of the document is located at the following address: > > > > http://www.annforbes.org/huxdocs.html > > > > TIA > > Regards > > Narelle > snip >

Liz, Martyn and Narelle Had another look at line 14 and think it just could be 'apnces' i.e. ap[purtena]ces. What do you think? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "mjcl" <mjcl@btinternet.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:40 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > Liz, Audrey, Narelle, > > My typos are terrible!! > > But I do agree with your other interpretations. Consideration makes perfect sense in the circumstances, much better than my first attempt, but I cant get any further with the mystery word on line 14. > > Regards, > > Martyn > > emagar@hotkey.net.au wrote: > Hi Narelle and Martyn, > > Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software > (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other > transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional > comments, so here goes. > > A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are > just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the > original transcription. > > 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. > 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' > 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? > 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' > 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' > 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also line 25 re Cons'on) > 16. A typo - '&' not '7' > 17. 'full' not 'free' > 19. "made by' not 'made of' > 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that in line 9, page 1. > 21. '&' not 'and' > 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' > 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' > 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' > 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' > > In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think it's Cons[ideration]. > The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! > > I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that also looks > like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think it's the only > word left. > > I hope that helps rather than confuses! > > Cheers, > > Liz in Melbourne > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Hi Narelle and Martyn, Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional comments, so here goes. A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the original transcription. 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also line 25 re Cons'on) 16. A typo - '&' not '7' 17. 'full' not 'free' 19. "made by' not 'made of' 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that in line 9, page 1. 21. '&' not 'and' 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think it's Cons[ideration]. The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that also looks like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think it's the only word left. I hope that helps rather than confuses! Cheers, Liz in Melbourne On Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:45 AM, mjcl [SMTP:mjcl@btinternet.com] wrote: > Narelle, > > I've had a go - There are a couple of gaps - particularly in lines 22 & 24, but I hope that it helps. > > > > 1. therein at the rate of to 15.p.c. p.a. payable half yearly > > 2. And whereas under & by intrest the s[ai]d [? sealed] two > > 3. several M[or]t[ga]ge Securiies therein now due & owing to the > > 4. s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. by the s[ai]d Thos. Huxley the Sum of £209.12.6 St[erlin]g > > 5. no more [margin] > for principal & interst money which the s[ai]d T. h. doth hereby > > 6. admit & acknowledge - And whereas the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. > > 7. & Thos. H. are [? -----] desirous that the s[aid] last mentioned sum > > 8. should be paid to the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. - And to Enable him > > 9. for that purpose the s[ai]d Thos. H. has requested the s[ai]d J. B. & > > 10. A.G.P. to advance & lend to him the the Sum of £220. st[erlin]g > > 11. which they have agreed to do upon having the Repayment > > 12. of the same under interest as sftermentioned secured to > > 13. them by these presents - Now this Ind[entu]re witnesseth > > 14. that in Com[m]on the [?-----] of the Sum of £200.12.6 St[erlin]g > > 15. paid by the s[ai]d J B & AGP to the s[ai]d JGD ^ at the request & ^ of the direction > > 16. of the s[ai]d T. Huxley & the receipt whereof 7 that the same is > > 17. in free satisfaction & discharge of all moneys now due & > > 18. owing to him & alll claims & demand that may be > > 19. made of him [the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D - deleted] under & by virtue of the > > 20. s[ai]d sealed two sev[era]l [? -----] of [?Nele] or m[or]t[ga]ge or Either of them > > 21. he the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. doth hereby admit and acknowledge > > 22. & [? ----firm] the same & [? ----] paid thereof doth acquit > > 23. release & discharge as well the s[ai]d J B & AGP as the > > 24. s[aid] T. Huxley & [? t------ ------------------------] - And in > > 25. Com[m]on of the further Sum of £10.7.6 St[erlin]g to the s[ai]d T. Huxley > > 26. Paid by the s[ai]d JB & AGP tthe rec[eip]t whereof & the payment > > 27. of the s[ai]d sum of £209.12.6 to the s[ai]d Jas Geo Doyle making > > Best regards, > > Martyn > > > I am hoping Liz in Melbourne and some others may be able to help me out again - there are 11 pages of this one document relating to the transaction of land sales in the Hawkesbury NSW Australia around the 1820's to 1830's. > Two names in the first doc are HUXLEY & DOYLE, > So far I have transcribed just a few lines - mostly inaccurate - but nevertheless: > Line 1: whereas the rate of to 15 % pa [ per annum ] payable half yearly > > Line 2: And whereas ..interest...the -- -- two > > Line 3: several ( indemnities?) therein now due owing to the > > Line 4: -- Jas. Geo. D -- -- Thos Huxley the sum of $ 209.12.6 stg (pnds...where is the pound sign in Micro word?) > > Line 5: -- -- for principal of (?) interest money while the T.H. doth hereby > > Line 6: -- acknowledge - And whereas the [ esquire?] Jas. Geo.D. > > The remainder of the document is located at the following address: > > http://www.annforbes.org/huxdocs.html > > TIA > Regards > Narelle snip

Liz, Audrey, Narelle, My typos are terrible!! But I do agree with your other interpretations. Consideration makes perfect sense in the circumstances, much better than my first attempt, but I cant get any further with the mystery word on line 14. Regards, Martyn emagar@hotkey.net.au wrote: Hi Narelle and Martyn, Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional comments, so here goes. A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the original transcription. 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also line 25 re Cons'on) 16. A typo - '&' not '7' 17. 'full' not 'free' 19. "made by' not 'made of' 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that in line 9, page 1. 21. '&' not 'and' 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think it's Cons[ideration]. The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that also looks like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think it's the only word left. I hope that helps rather than confuses! Cheers, Liz in Melbourne

Dear Liz I've no idea of whether I've got the right line, or even the right part of the document but I have transcribed line 14 (or what I think is line 14) as 'was with the app[urtenance]s Conveyed and assured unto and to the use of the s[ai]d' Please enlighten me as to whether I am 'on the right line/s' with this one. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: <emagar@hotkey.net.au> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:07 AM Subject: RE: [OEL] HUXLEY Doc Number 2 > Hi Narelle and Martyn, > > Sorry this has taken a while - I am struggling with broken email software > (my Office CD won't read!) and I've also been helping with other > transcriptions. Since Martyn's posting, I haven't seen any additional > comments, so here goes. > > A few additions/changes to Martyn's transcription - several of these are > just typos which it's much easier to see when one hasn't done the > original transcription. > > 2. A typo - 'interest', and I agree it's 'sealed'. > 5. A couple of typos - shld. be 'interest' and "T.H.' > 7. 'are respec[tive]ly' ? > 10. A typo - 'the the' shld be 'the' > 12. 'with' not 'under' and typo - 'aftermentioned' > 14. 'that in Cons[iderati]on of the [..?..] & of the sum of' (see also line 25 re Cons'on) > 16. A typo - '&' not '7' > 17. 'full' not 'free' > 19. "made by' not 'made of' > 20. 'two sev[era]l Ind[entu]res of Rele[ase]' The R here looks like that in line 9, page 1. > 21. '&' not 'and' > 22. '& of & from the same & every part thereof doth acquit' > 24. 's[ai]d T. Huxley & their resp[ecti]ve heirs Exec[uto]rs ad[ministrator]s & ass[igns] - And in' > 25. 'Cons[iderati]on' rather than 'Com[m]on' > 26. A typo - 'the' not 'tthe' > > In line 14 and line 25 Com[m]on doesn't seem to fit the sense. I think it's Cons[ideration]. > The write is a great one for extreme abbreviation! > > I have not been able to think of any word to fill the gap in line 14 that also looks > like what is written. Perhaps someone else could look at this. I think it's the only > word left. > > I hope that helps rather than confuses! > > Cheers, > > Liz in Melbourne > > On Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:45 AM, mjcl [SMTP:mjcl@btinternet.com] wrote: > > Narelle, > > > > I've had a go - There are a couple of gaps - particularly in lines 22 & 24, but I hope that it > helps. > > > > > > > > 1. therein at the rate of to 15.p.c. p.a. payable half yearly > > > > 2. And whereas under & by intrest the s[ai]d [? sealed] two > > > > 3. several M[or]t[ga]ge Securiies therein now due & owing to the > > > > 4. s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. by the s[ai]d Thos. Huxley the Sum of £209.12.6 St[erlin]g > > > > 5. no more [margin] > > for principal & interst money which the s[ai]d T. h. doth hereby > > > > 6. admit & acknowledge - And whereas the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. > > > > 7. & Thos. H. are [? -----] desirous that the s[aid] last mentioned sum > > > > 8. should be paid to the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. - And to Enable him > > > > 9. for that purpose the s[ai]d Thos. H. has requested the s[ai]d J. B. & > > > > 10. A.G.P. to advance & lend to him the the Sum of £220. st[erlin]g > > > > 11. which they have agreed to do upon having the Repayment > > > > 12. of the same under interest as sftermentioned secured to > > > > 13. them by these presents - Now this Ind[entu]re witnesseth > > > > 14. that in Com[m]on the [?-----] of the Sum of £200.12.6 St[erlin]g > > > > 15. paid by the s[ai]d J B & AGP to the s[ai]d JGD ^ at the request & ^ of the direction > > > > 16. of the s[ai]d T. Huxley & the receipt whereof 7 that the same is > > > > 17. in free satisfaction & discharge of all moneys now due & > > > > 18. owing to him & alll claims & demand that may be > > > > 19. made of him [the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D - deleted] under & by virtue of the > > > > 20. s[ai]d sealed two sev[era]l [? -----] of [?Nele] or m[or]t[ga]ge or Either of them > > > > 21. he the s[ai]d Jas. Geo. D. doth hereby admit and acknowledge > > > > 22. & [? ----firm] the same & [? ----] paid thereof doth acquit > > > > 23. release & discharge as well the s[ai]d J B & AGP as the > > > > 24. s[aid] T. Huxley & [? t------ ------------------------] - And in > > > > 25. Com[m]on of the further Sum of £10.7.6 St[erlin]g to the s[ai]d T. Huxley > > > > 26. Paid by the s[ai]d JB & AGP tthe rec[eip]t whereof & the payment > > > > 27. of the s[ai]d sum of £209.12.6 to the s[ai]d Jas Geo Doyle making > > > > Best regards, > > > > Martyn > > > > > > I am hoping Liz in Melbourne and some others may be able to help me out again - there are 11 > pages of this one document relating to the transaction of land sales in the Hawkesbury NSW > Australia around the 1820's to 1830's. > > Two names in the first doc are HUXLEY & DOYLE, > > So far I have transcribed just a few lines - mostly inaccurate - but nevertheless: > > Line 1: whereas the rate of to 15 % pa [ per annum ] payable half yearly > > > > Line 2: And whereas ..interest...the -- -- two > > > > Line 3: several ( indemnities?) therein now due owing to the > > > > Line 4: -- Jas. Geo. D -- -- Thos Huxley the sum of $ 209.12.6 stg (pnds...where is the pound > sign in Micro word?) > > > > Line 5: -- -- for principal of (?) interest money while the T.H. doth hereby > > > > Line 6: -- acknowledge - And whereas the [ esquire?] Jas. Geo.D. > > > > The remainder of the document is located at the following address: > > > > http://www.annforbes.org/huxdocs.html > > > > TIA > > Regards > > Narelle > snip > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

A number of you have contacted me recently and not had an answer. I wasn't ignoring you -- just having the house re-wired, practically, in search of a transient problem that had me moving the computer from outlet to outlet until there were none left where the broadband cable and extension could still reach :-(. Anyway, it will take me a day or two to deal with the backlog, but you will get an answer. Happy to be back in business, Judith Werner Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Administrator, OLD-ENGLISH-L http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

In message <000901c41281$024d0660$c7ccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Is a shelter thus built known as a cottage? depends on the structure., It could be simpler, one room to be added to when time allowed, or it might later become the barn to a more dwelling like home.,The idea was that once you erected some sort of structure where you could light a fire (smoke leaving through hole in roof), then you were legally 'there' and could expand later. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Thank you, Eve. Much appreciated. Liz in Melbourne On Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:09 PM, Eve McLaughlin [SMTP:eve@varneys.demon.co.uk] wrote: > > > > >In a will of 1655, the following occurs > >"...Thomas Ham[m]ond of Threshfield gent hath by Indenture of mortgage secured > >some landes in Threshfield to my [sic - me] my Executors administrators > >and Assignes for twoe thousand yeares with a Provisoe that the > >estate thereof be voyd upon payment of Twoe hundreth poundes > >to me my executors or Assignes upon the second day of February > >which shalbe in the yeare of our Lord 1656 and of Interest > >yearlie for the same untill it be paid..." > > > >Was there some reason in particular why a mortgage would be for two thousand > >years? Was this wording common? > 1000 was, as an incentive to the borrower to get up and scrape together > the money and repay it on time. So 2000 is just a doubly sure incentive? > > However, these were difficult times (Commonwealth) hence possibly > Thomas was a crypto royalist, and what he was really doing was > apparently giving his estate away, to avoid having it confiscated by > Parliament under the provision for 'malignants' estates'. > -- > Eve McLaughlin

Is a shelter thus built known as a cottage? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> Cc: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] tenants rights > In message <001901c4117d$d9994020$2bd0fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >What about squatters in relation to the waste? > If you tried that on a mediaeval manor, you ended up with important bits > of you anatomy missing. > There was a provision for raising a shelter (cottage-let) on the waste > in C17, usually late C17, if you could do it and get a fire going > within 24 hours. Of course, this needed to cooperation of carpenters and > a team of helpers, so it could only be accomplished if you were > acceptable to the locals anyway. It was a stopgap provision between > allowing no incomers and allowing those who came with a settlement > certificate. You tend to get retrospective planning permission from the > magistrates. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society >

Greetings all, In a will of 1655, the following occurs "...Thomas Ham[m]ond of Threshfield gent hath by Indenture of mortgage secured some landes in Threshfield to my [sic - me] my Executors administrators and Assignes for twoe thousand yeares with a Provisoe that the estate thereof be voyd upon payment of Twoe hundreth poundes to me my executors or Assignes upon the second day of February which shalbe in the yeare of our Lord 1656 and of Interest yearlie for the same untill it be paid..." Was there some reason in particular why a mortgage would be for two thousand years? Was this wording common? It does seem rather excessive, although I suppose not quite as long as 'for ever'! Cheers, Liz in Melbourne