Dear All, I found this note that Joyce sent to me several years ago as I was trying to downsize my paper pile. The reference is FHL Cat.# 925798. And I quote: " Be it remembered that Catherine Rubeley of South Precink, farmer on this [Date? not listed] spinster & Rubin Rubeley of said prescink, farmer, on this 24th day of June, 1765 in the 5th year of the reign of etc. came before me John Cogan --------, Esq. one of the justices of the peacein Dutchess Co. and in their proper persons acknowledge themselves to be indebted to our Soverieign Lord the King in manners and form following [40 pounds owed]" Also from the same file: "William Rubeley of the South Presink farmer and Elesor Baker of South Precink farmer 17 July 1765 acknowledge to be indebted to Sovereign, etc. William Rubeley 40 Pounds Elesor Baker 20 Pounds" From FHL Cat.# 925799: "William Robblee complains of Josiah Benjamin in custody of the High sherriff of Dutchess Co. said Josiah on 8th Aug 1765 at Poukeepsie made a promisary note and delin? it to William and promised to pay 9 Pounds before 8th day of Aug, etc." I think we need to revisit these records and verify the wordings and spellings. The first record indicates that Reuben Robblee's mother's name might be Catherine. If so, who was her husband? Does the wording of this record indicate that she might have been the wife of a man named Reuben? Or is she perhaps the 3rd wife of Andrew, Bapt. 1736? Her property is being taxed at the same rate as William's, both of which are twice the amount assessed to Elesor Baker. Both records from 1765 use the spelling Rubeley, but by 1768, William's complaint against Josiah Benjamin is spelled Robblee. I wonder what changed that caused this spelling to appear? Did someone learn to read at that point or did someone else come into their lives with that spelling? Or did they know the spelling all along but never insisted or never saw the spellings used in records on their behalf? The first 2 records mention South Precinct. Did people own the property there or were they tenants? If just tenants, this may explain the drive to open new frontiers where freehold land was available. The history of early NY and other parts of the New England States may have an answer to this question. In answer to a previous question from Cindy, I at the present time show Thomas Roblee, Jr. d. 1842, bur. Hartford Cem. as the son Thomas Robblee, 1740-1808 until further information shows up to either confirm or disprove this theory. It explains why Thomas Roblee, married Laura Robblee, dau. of Thomas and Chloe, was known as Thomas, the second. Please let me know your thoughts on these records. HOpe to hear from you soon. Bob