Dear WRG: The following was sent to me by Laura Sullivan, a recent member. West Cemetary; Ashby, Mass: John B. Whitney Died Aug 26, 1882 Age 81   Harriet Cushing Wife of John B. Whitney July 11, 1875 AE 72 We both hope that it will be useful to other members of the WRG. Allan E. Green

Hi Jo, I am seeing your message, Maureen -----Original Message----- From: AT&T <jhogle@mn.mediaone.net> To: WHITNEY-L@rootsweb.com <WHITNEY-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:15 AM Subject: [WHITNEY-L] test >Since I changed email addys and resubbed to the list I have not received any >mail. Just checking to see if I have been added under this email address or >not. >Jo Hogle >JHogle@mn.mediaone.net > >

Since I changed email addys and resubbed to the list I have not received any mail. Just checking to see if I have been added under this email address or not. Jo Hogle JHogle@mn.mediaone.net

Thank you for the e-mails about John Whitney. My John Whitney was born about 1784 in MA, he died Feb. 20, 1871 in Coles County, IL where he is buried. I believe that the 1850 Census for Chautaugua County, NY with a John Whitney and a Truman Whitney are probably my John and Truman as some of Truman's children are born there. John Whitney was married to Polly Gibbs. The names of John and Polly's children are Melinda born 1814, Truman born 1818, Elijah 1820, and Chauncey 1824. Any suggestions on where else to look? I check the Whitney website frequently, I just joined a Massechusetts website.

Fellow listers, When I first started this family tree about a year ago, I thought I saw Laura Ingles Wilder in it. I did not know how to trace it backwards. Two weeks ago, I posted some of the information I had to the Wilder List. I got the information in my in box just in time for Christmas. Does anyone else have her in their tree? Thank you, Maureen

Dear WRG, There is probably no one stationed at their computors today. In case someone is out there, I wanted to wish everyone PEACE and JOY for Christmas and all through the new NEW YEAR. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Maureen xxx ooo

Janet, At 07:52 AM 12/24/00 -0500, Janet Duffield wrote: >Does anyone have access to the 1790 Census for Massechusetts? If so, >could you look for a John Whitney who would be 4-6 years old? I would >appreciate any help. Thank you. The 1790 Census does not list every person in every household by name. That didn't begin until 1850. For each household, the head of household is named, and then the number of males 16+ years old, the number of males 0-15 years old, the number of females (of any age), the number of slaves, and the number of all other free persons. Thus a typical entry is: 1790 Census, Maine, Hancock Co., Frankfort, p. 28: Daniel Whitney 1 0 4 0 0 This means that Daniel Whitney was the head of household, and undoubtedly was the 1 male 16+; also in the household were four females (age unspecified). You can see that your question cannot be answered. The best that could be done is to list the households whose heads were named Whitney containing at least one male 0-15 years old. (This is making the assumption that your John Whitney was living in his father's or widowed-but-not-remarried-mother's family.) Regards, Robert Robert L. Ward rlward1@erols.com <http://users.erols.com/rlward1/> 12236 Shadetree Lane, Laurel, MD 20708-2832 301-776-1659

Does anyone have access to the 1790 Census for Massechusetts? If so, could you look for a John Whitney who would be 4-6 years old? I would appreciate any help. Thank you.

--part1_70.64c6919.2776bd69_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear WRG: This was posted tonight by Janice Farnsworth on the Middlesex County maillist. I pass it on because of John Whitney's involvement. Thanks to her for her continuing postings of data from older publications. Allan E. Green --part1_70.64c6919.2776bd69_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <MAMIDDLE-L-request@rootsweb.com> Received: from rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (rly-zb02.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.2]) by air-zb03.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:39:09 -0500 Received: from lists6.rootsweb.com (lists6.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.125]) by rly-zb02.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:38:42 -0500 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists6.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBO0PsI02660; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:25:54 -0800 Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:25:54 -0800 X-Original-Sender: Farns10th@aol.com Sat Dec 23 16:25:53 2000 From: Farns10th@aol.com Message-ID: <89.44cda5.27769cec@aol.com> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:27:24 EST Old-To: GenMassachusetts-L@rootsweb.com, MAMIDDLE-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 127 Subject: [<MAMIDDLE> ] History of Shirley, MA; 1st birth and first settlers. Resent-Message-ID: <noz7cD.A.Yp.SKUR6@lists6.rootsweb.com> To: MAMIDDLE-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: MAMIDDLE-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: <MAMIDDLE-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/2643 X-Loop: MAMIDDLE-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: MAMIDDLE-L-request@rootsweb.com Subject: History of Shirley, Mass. Source: History of Groton, Mass., by Caleb Butler 1848 p.358 Chapter XIX In the foregoing history of Groton, Chapter V., it is shown that the southwest part of that town was incorporated a district by the name of Shirley, January 5, 1753 (no reason, by tradition or otherwise, is given for this name, [but] it was probably in honor of William Shirley, then governor of the province. Its boundaries, as set off, were as follows: Commencing at the place where Squannacook River empties into the Nashua; thence northwesterly by Squannacook River to the westerly side of Groton; thence southerly on said line, bounding on Townsend and Lunenburg, to the southwest corner of Groton; thence easterly on Groton line, by that part of Stow called "Stow Leg," to Nashua River; thence northerly down said river to the mouth of the Squannacook. By accident or otherwise, the westerly line of Stow-Leg is not an exact continuance of the west line of Groton, but inclines a little to the east from Groton old corner to Lunenburg corner. This variation has not been noticed by the selectmen of Lunenburg and Shirley in their perambulations of the line; and they have passed from the bound at the southwest corner of Stow-Leg a straight line to the bound in Groton line to the bound in Groton line at Squannacook River, leaving the bound of old Groton southwest corner about five and a half rods to the west of the straight line. This error having been lately discovered, a petition for its correction is pending in the Legislature. By an act of the General Court in 1765, Stow-Leg being a territory about two hundred rods in breadth and extending in length one mile, from Lunenburg line to Nashua River, was annexed to Shirley. Also by another act, the farms of Moody Chase, Samuel Chase and Simon Daby (or Darby) an irregular shaped territory, on the east side of the Nashua River, were in 1798, set off from Groton and annexed to Shirley. The territory first described, with the two annexations, comprises the present (1848) town of Shirley. A petition was once presented to the General Court to have one mile in width taken from the easterly side of Lunenburg and annexed to Shirley, but it did not prevail. At what time the first settlement upon this territory was made is not known, but from several considerations it is probable a settlement was commenced about the year 1720. There was no bridge talked of, over Nashua River, leading to that place, until 1722 and none built till 1726. The first birth of a white person, on the west side of Nashua River, is said to be that of Samuel Shattuck, September 25, 1726, and that birth was in what is now Pepperell, which is supposed to have been settled as soon as Shirley or a little before. The first indication of the inhabitants' desire to be a separate parish or district, is the petition of John Whitney and thirty-two others, inserted in Capter V of Groton. The names of the petitioners were: John Whitney John Williams David Gould John Kelsey Phinehas Burt Joseph Wilson Thomas Laughton James Peterson Jonathan Gould Robert Henry John Williams, Jr. Jacob Williams William Farwell Jonas Longley Oliver Farwell Isaac Holden Jerahmael Powers Philemon Holden Stephen Holden, Jr. William Simonds William Preston William Williams Henry Farwell Josiah Farwell John Russell James Park Daniel Page Joseph Dodge Moses Bennett, Jr. Caleb Bartlett Francis Harris Caleb Holden Hezekia Sawtell, Jr. This list probably contains nearly or quite all the men of the place in 1747, the date of the petition. The town seems not to have made any objection to their being set off, but the act of the General Court for the purpose was not passed and signed by the Governor till January 5, 1753. The first district meeting was held at the house of Mr. John Whitney March 5, 1753, at which the district officers were chosen. The warrant for this meeting was issued by John Whitney, and served by Nathaniel Harris. Jonathan Bigelow was chosen moderator; Joseph Longley district clerk; Joseph Longley, Samuel Hazen, Nathaniel Harris, John Whitney and William Simons, selectmen and assessors. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Transcribed by Janice Farnsworth --part1_70.64c6919.2776bd69_boundary--

Looking for any link to any other Whitney for my great grandmother Julia Whitney. The only information I have on her is that she was born in Arkansas 8/9/1865, died I don't know where for sure but I think Dallas, TX area on 8/23/1910. Old family members say she was a grandaughter of Eli Whitney, but I cannot find any connection. Was married in Denton County Texas to J.C. Purciller on March 21, 1880, and had 10 children. Am having trouble finding any Arkansas connection to Whitneys. Can anyone help?

Hello everyone, I'm back on the list again. Happy holidays!

Yes there ae Whitneys in Illinois! It took me many years but I finally connected my grandmother Lanora Whitney back to John & Elinor thanks in a large part to the marriage index (database) that Illinois now has online. See their site at <www.ilsos.net/departments/archives/archives.html>. The marriage index is under this one at <www.ilsos.net/departments/archives/marriage.html>. Be aware that this is a 'work in progress' - not all counties are available at this time. They are, in fact, looking for volunteers to input the remaining information. Unfortunately WRG seldom has anything other than East coast Whitneys. Happy Hunting John WHITNEY-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Subject: [WHITNEY-L] Re: Whitneys in Illinois > Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 21:12:46 -0500 > From: "Mike and Annette Poston" <poston@erols.com> > To: WHITNEY-L@rootsweb.com > > There are several instances of Whitneys in Illinois. I have looked at > statewide records on a couple of sites (whose address escapes at the moment) > and I recall them in several locations. My own interest in Whitney is in > the descendants of the ever-elusive Jabez who lived in Adams County. Joseph > I. Whitney lived there as did several of his sisters--Ann (Whitney) Peart > and Lydia (Whitney) Castle among them. Jabez W. Whitney married in Brown > County and later settled in Mercer County, Minnesota. > > Mike Poston > Rockville, Maryland > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <woffordp@memphis-schools.k12.tn.us> > To: <WHITNEY-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 3:23 PM > Subject: [WHITNEY-L] Re: WHITNEY-D Digest V00 #277 > > > > > Stu, > > > > I too monitor the rootsweb daily and this is the first time I've seen > > mention of Whitney's in IL. My father is a Whitney. Are you by chance > > related to Jonah Whitney who married Mary Ann Wadsworth? If not can you > > share with me your line? > > > > Pat > > > >

Hi, I checked on the Mass Statutes dealing with Fornication and found that Section 18 of Chapter 272 of the Mass General Laws is the criminal statute which provides that whoever commits fornication is punishable by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than $30. That statute dates back to the 17th century. Chapter 277, section 39 defines fornication as "Sexual intercourse between an unmarried male and an unmarried female". Thus, it is consentual sex and cannot be rape and it is between unmarried parties and thus is not adultery. Interestingly, Adultery, being sex involving a married party, under the provisions of Chapter 272, Section 12, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail (county) for not more than two years or a fine of up to $500. Fornication is a misdemeanor whereas adultery is a felony. Case law now has pretty much decriminalized fornication in Massachusetts. Fornication is still on the books in about 1/3rd of the states and adultery in about 1/2 of the states. Poor Benjamin, he was ahead of his time. Best regards and Merry Christmas, Jim Whitney

Read this in the Worcester Telegram today. Dorothy L. Pulchtopek Thursday, December 21, 2000 Dorothy L. Pulchtopek WARE-- Dorothy L. (Whitney) Pulchtopek, 77, of 7 Canal St., a retired employee of the Ware Shoe Co., died Tuesday, Dec. 19, in Mary Lane Hospital. She leaves her husband of 56 years, Vincent Pulchtopek; a son, Paul Pulchtopek of Lake Worth, Fla.; a daughter, Diane Pulchtopek of Ware; two brothers, Benjamin Whitney of Ocala, Fla., and David Whitney of Bradenton, Fla.; two grandchildren; a great-grandson; and several nephews and nieces. She was born in Wilmington, Vt., daughter of Alvin and Hazel (Nelson) Whitney, and lived in Ware most of her life. She graduated from Ware High School in 1943. Mrs. Pulchtopek worked at the former Ware Shoe Co. for many years, retiring in 1972. She was a member of St. Mary's Church. The funeral service will be held Friday, Dec. 22, from Cebula Funeral Home, 66 South St., with a Mass at 10 a.m. in St. Mary's Church, 60 South St. Burial will be in St. Mary's Cemetery. A calling hour is 9 to 10 a.m. Friday, Dec. 22, at the funeral home. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to St. Mary's School, South and Charles streets, Ware, MA 01082. ************************************************************** Searching for LORD, HANNER, HAWKINS, WHITNEY, WRIGHT,McGEE,McKEE,COOPER,SMITH,TWITCHELL,BILLINGS. SYLVESTER, LAWRENCE, WHORF,WHARFF

Thanks to those who wrote to clarify the Benjamin Whitney/Wochester County Court case of 1731/2. One of the reasons I like this site so much is the level of expertise available and the willingness of all to share what they know. I'll be off for a while, probably until after the New Year. A reminder to everyone to please vote as to whether and where we should have a reunion. Jeanne Muse and I plan to look at the results after the holidays. Be sure to make your preference known! Sincere best wishes for a happy, safe holiday. See you all in 2001 ! from, Carolyn Whitney Branagan

Hi all you cousins out there, Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, Arv

Hi, Good work, Alan. My only slight technical correction is that being bound over normally in no way implies guilt - but rather that the initial judge found probable cause for further court proceedings in which guilt and sentencing would be determined. Jim Whitney

Hi, I forgot to mention the "bound over" refers to being held for further court action - and that was released with the sentencing. Recognizance refers to having been allowed to be free between court appearances (i.e., while being bound over) without having to post property for bail. In effect, it meant he was sufficiently known in the community that he was trustworthy to show for the next court appearance. Jim Whitney

Hi Carolyn, I'll answer your questions in part and will get back with greater details when I'm in the office tomorrow and can check the lawbooks. Fornication would not necessarily be adultery as it can be an offense committed with a spouse. It is sometimes referred to as an unnatural act but has included acts which we now would consider natural. Specific acts included depend on the jurisdiction. It is not rape. It could be charged along with adultery or rape as a lesser offense but is separate and distinct from both. It may be different acts with different fact situations. Hope this helps but I'll get back with more detailed information. Best regards and Merry Christmas, Jim Whitney

Dear Carolyn: Let me first tackle the question of which Benjamin. The only one that I can find that seems to fit the proper time frame is the Benjamin Whitney born 22 May 1709 in Sherborn, Middlesex, MA, to Benjamin and Hester (Maverick) Whitney, i.e., Benjamin-4 (Benjamin-3, Benjamin-2, John-1). It is a curious coincidence that the charge of fornication was brought in the Feb 1731/2 term of court, and this Benjamin was married in Watertown to Margaret Sanderson either the 21st or 24th of February of 1731/2. I suspect, but cannot prove, that somehow they got caught having conjugal relations early, and either were hurriedly married or were already scheduled to get married and got caught jumping the gun. The problem with this is that the Benjamin of the Worcester County charge is given as being "of Lancaster" and this Benjamin seems to be "of Framingham." The marriage cited above took place in Watertown, but is shown in the Framingham VR's, and the three children I show for the couple were all born in Framingham. I would be delighted to receive other ideas for the identification of the Benjamin of Lancaster shown in the court notice. Now, for your other questions. I don't think it is likely to have been for rape. That would have been treated as a more serious criminal charge. Fornication as a crime is our Puritan ancestors applying their religious strictness to a social matter by making it a crime. The fine of twenty shillings was a substantial one, make no mistake. My understanding of the time period, however, would be that a rape would have been punished by a more severe penalty. A husbandman would have been a farmer. Being bound over by way of Recognizance would mean, I understand, that he pledged in a lower court before the cited Mr Justice Wilder, to appear in this (the proper) court to be sentenced for being Guilty of this offense. That sounds to me like he admitted guilt to the lower court judge, and was bound over to the higher court for sentencing. Own Recognizance is a legal term that simply means that the defendant promises to appear at a specified place and time, without having to post a bond of any kind to guarantee that appearance. I hope this helps to clarify the previous posted notice. Happy Hunting! Allan E. Green