From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Tue Nov 3 00:04:34 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:04:34 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] World Vital Records Message-ID: <200911030004.34883.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> World Vital Records have just launched their Australasian site at http://www.worldvitalrecords.com.au/index.php Since there were negotiations with the Ryerson Index http://www.ryersonindex.org/ of which I am a committee member (there is a link on the Home Page,) I am almost obligated to join. I was going to attend the launch at Melbourne, but my health let me down. A committee member who went to a launch in N.S.W. said that they were very like Ancestry.com, only better. That may be a fair summing up. You can sign up for a free 5-day trial without giving any credit card details (they point that out - an indirect "dig" at Ancestry.com.) I seem to recall some criticism of the world site a while back, but can't recall any details. I could find nothing negative. There has been no comment yet on the GENANZ mailing list. Anyway, searching there for Thomas Boykett, I found two mentions in the S.A. Government Gazette. Both listed the issuing of annual practising certificates. Apart from that, there were a number of links to Google Books. These I know about, or else they are not our Thomas. They took me off site to the Google Books site. Typically, the first one I looked at (dated 1826) had only a clipping showing, and that was the page heading and nothing else - the frame was displaced. I see that regularly in Google Books. I tried to print out the G.G. references, but the data didn't print. That is a common problem when the site uses Flash. I could have taken a screenshot to get around that. Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Sun Nov 8 22:51:22 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:51:22 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Found a record of Rev Bunn Message-ID: <200911082251.22300.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> In the soc.genealogy.britain newsgroup (a Usenet version of a Rootsweb mailing list,) it was mentioned that the Charles Surman Index of Congregational Ministers is available at http://surman.english.qmul.ac.uk/index.html I found Rev Bunn there. His record is as follows: Bunn, Hendy John Born: 26 April 1800 London Died: Date Academy Tutor Note n.d.-n.d. Rowell Academy, Northamptonshire n.d.-n.d. Hoxton Date Place County Note 1824-1833 Long Sutton Lincolnshire 1834-1838 Yardley Hastings Northamptonshire 1838-1868 Castle Street, Abergavenny Monmouthshire This matches our data. His ordination and induction to Long Sutton was the occasion when Thomas took part. The record of that mentions that he was a graduate of Hoxton. He was at Abergavenny in 1854. I got the impression elsewhere that he spent most of his working life there. The name Hendy may be a typo for Henry. The S.A. State Library has confirmed that in the address on Thomas' letter, his second initial was definitely a G. Why that was so, we can only speculate. NOTE: The practice between religious denominations may have varied. In the former Presbyterian Church, as apparently in the Congregational Church, a minister was "licensed to preach", but not ordained until he had a parish to go to. He was then "ordained and inducted." When he transferred, he was inducted into his new charge only. Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Thu Nov 12 18:47:08 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:47:08 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Thomas and Maria: marriage record. Message-ID: <200911121847.09004.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Rosemary discovered that Ancestry.com had a copy of the registration of Thomas' second marriage, and Pauline told us what it said. I have now viewed the record itself and saved a copy. It is in a similar format to the one of Caroline's baptism. Ancestry.com had his middle name as "Rebbert" but that was a transcription error. Parts of it are quite faint. The marriage celebrant was a curate at St Mary's, Islington, so the ceremony was in the Church of England form. The witnesses were Maria's father and mother. The date was 21 January, 1835. The marriage was however by Licence, while the one immediately above it was by Banns. Lord Hardwicke's Act of the 18th Century, designed to outlaw Fleet marriages, required all marriages to be celebrated in a church, and after banns. In 1837 two concessions were made to Nonconformists: civil registration of births marriages and deaths, and a more relaxed marriage law. Both of Thomas' marriages were by licence. That suggests an intermediate stage, where a licence was an alternative to banns. I don't know any more about it. If anybody has more information, feel free to send a reply to the mailing list. The list is open to all subscribers like GENANZ. I will put images of this and other registration records on the Web site, and associate them with the event. Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Fri Nov 13 03:06:03 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:06:03 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Thomas and Maria: marriage record. In-Reply-To: <200911121847.09004.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> References: <200911121847.09004.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Message-ID: <200911130306.03430.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> I have looked a bit further into marriage by licence. From a Web page for the Guildhall (where Hannah nee King's burial record was preserved) at http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/marrlic.htm : "*Licence* Persons intending to be married usually had their banns read in church on three Sundays before the marriage. Those not wishing to be married by banns could obtain a licence from an appropriate (usually ecclesiastical) authority to marry at a place within its jurisdiction. Marriage by licence was often preferred because it was quicker, more convenient and/or more discreet, or because it was thought to confer social prestige. *Allegation* A marriage licence was issued only after a written allegation of intention to marry was made by the prospective bride or bridegroom (or by their representative), giving their parishes and approximate ages and stating that there was no legal impediment to the marriage. It is the allegation which should be sought when evidence of the issuing of a licence is required, since the allegations were usually retained by the issuing authority, while the licences themselves, having been shown to the person who was to conduct the marriage ceremony, were not preserved systematically and rarely survive." The allegation for Thomas' marriage to Hannah is among the documents that my researcher in England found for me. It was made by Thomas. Doug. On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:47:08 pm Doug Laidlaw wrote: > > The marriage was however by Licence, while the one immediately above it was > by Banns. > > Lord Hardwicke's Act of the 18th Century, designed to outlaw Fleet > marriages, required all marriages to be celebrated in a church, and after > banns. In 1837 two concessions were made to Nonconformists: civil > registration of births marriages and deaths, and a more relaxed marriage > law. Both of Thomas' marriages were by licence. That suggests an > intermediate stage, where a licence was an alternative to banns. I don't > know any more about it. If anybody has more information, feel free to send > a reply to the mailing list. The list is open to all subscribers like > GENANZ. > From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Sat Nov 14 00:01:50 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:01:50 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] "Mr Boykett for the plaintiff" Message-ID: <200911140001.50797.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Found this during a Google search. It is a newspaper report of proceedings of the Court of Petty Sessions at Adelaide, used as a demo of a program of some kind. The link is http://ll02.nla.gov.au/resource/12109555-b02e-41f1-a679- e07e498610df To read it, make sure that you get the whole link. You will probably need to copy and paste both parts of it into your browser's address bar. For an idea of the quality, look at this, which I copied and pasted: "The Queen v. Russell.-This was a charge laid against the defendant for beating a constable in the execution of hiB dirty." Sometimes the OCR engine uses the figure 1 instead of "l", the standard abbreviation for pounds. The date was "Wednesday, June 8," but the year is not given. The transcript refers to an Act of Parliament (the Mercantile Shipping Repeal Act of 1858) dated after Thomas had died. It would seem therefore that the Mr Boykett must be William. John was employed by Downer's at the date of his death, but he wasn't a trained lawyer, and he had to deal with the argument based on the Act. Even if he was allowed to appear, I wouldn't expect him to be able to handle it. (The point of it was, that some shipping documents were negotiable like cheques. If they were stolen, the thief could still give a good title. With the title came the responsibility to pay the debt. That is what the word "negotiable" means. The 1858 Act took away that negotiability. That is the basics; the detail may have been a bit different. The argument needed a trained lawyer.) The first year after 1858 when the 8th June was a Wednesday was 1859. The next one was 1870. So it seems that the paper is dated 1859. That would make sense, particularly if the Boykett who travelled to Victoria by ship about then was Charles, as I believe. I would need to find that advice again for specific dates. (Incidentally, if Joan McEwing's story about William being too drunk to appear in the Supreme Court were true, William would by now be too senior for Petty Sessions appearances, for a case involving 3 pounds, anyway.) Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Mon Nov 23 17:47:59 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:47:59 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Fate of the "Gipsy." Message-ID: <200911231747.59631.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Has anybody wondered what finally became of the Gipsy? We know that she travelled to Christchurch the following year, but nothing after that. I have just received an e-mail from a salvage business in Jakarta trying to track her down. The first paragraph is as follows: "I'm starting research into the barque Gipsy, Captain Allan Bolton. I work as a diver/researcher for a marine salvage company in Jakarta, Indonesia. I am specifically looking for information about the Gipsy sinking in the Carimata Strait east of the Scharvogel islands. I have found several newspaper excerpts about the Gipsy sinking but I believe there is more." The Scharvogel islands are not in my atlas, but the Strait is there, spelled Karimata, off the south-west corner of Borneo. It is on GoogleEarth as well. The only link I could find on Google was to a 19th century Directory which says: "SCHARVOGEL ISLANDS are a group of seven islands, the easternmost of which by the chart is in lat. 3? 18' S., long. 108? 28' E. The islands are from 90 to 120 ft. high, and thickly wooded, having between them numerous reefs and sandbanks. The relative positions of these islands with each other is uncertain. Between the northern island and the Meray group is a channel 3 or 4 miles wide, with 5 to 9 fathoms water in it. It is bounded on either side by the reefs which extend northward from the islands." Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Mon Nov 23 19:07:24 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:07:24 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Fate of the "Gipsy." In-Reply-To: References: <200911231747.59631.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Message-ID: <200911231907.24957.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> I found these: "Captain Allan Bolton":http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/name-420303.html which contains a link to the "Gipsey" (sic: This is one name where spelling cannot be guaranteed.) The link mentions two voyages to New Zealand. The first is the one on Peter and Denise's site with a passenger list. The page is still on Rootsweb, but the links from it don't work any more. Doug. On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:39:22 pm Neil & Pauline McEwen wrote: > Doug, your letter brought back memories but not in relation to Gipsy. > My late father, Eric Hart, had started to build a yacht in Auckland in > 1948 - I asked dad whatever happened to the yacht. He said he had no idea > so I set about finding out. It took me 2 years to track her down! I was > fortunate enough to obtain photos of her, one of which I had blown up and > presented to dad on his 80th birthday (in 1999). He started telling us how > he came to build the yacht. I told him he should write it down because it > was a piece of Auckland yachting history that would be lost if never > documented. Bless his heart - he wrote it out long hand - I typed it up and > had it make into a booklet which we distributed (free) to Yacht Clubs, > Maritime Museums, fellow yachting enthusiasts etc. The yacht was called > "Kismet". I still have some copies of the booklet here - you are very > welcome to a copy, should you be interested. Dad passed away in October > 2006. I am in contact with the present owner of Kismet. > > With regard to Gipsy - I've done a Google search and found a few "hits". > Have you tried www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz (a very addictive site of old > newspapers), also the Maritime Index www.maritimeindex.org.nz > > Happy hunting! > > Pauline > > !DSPAM:4b0a3ccd245058052319975! From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Mon Nov 23 19:24:38 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:24:38 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Fate of the "Gipsy." In-Reply-To: <200911231907.24957.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> References: <200911231747.59631.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> <200911231907.24957.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Message-ID: <200911231924.38672.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> And another one, from the National Library of Australia, a demo page similar to the one I put up about William Boykett, with random data: "Gipsy, ship, 426 toni, Captain Bolton, from Shanghai March 17" The typo will be due to OCR. No year, unfortunately, and no way of deducing it as I did before. But in the right territory to have sunk in the Java Sea. Actually, I am more interested in the people. It would be nice to know what happened to her, that is all. Doug. On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:07:24 pm Doug Laidlaw wrote: > I found these: > > "Captain Allan Bolton":http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/name-420303.html > > which contains a link to the "Gipsey" (sic: This is one name where spelling > cannot be guaranteed.) The link mentions two voyages to New Zealand. The > first is the one on Peter and Denise's site with a passenger list. The > page is still on Rootsweb, but the links from it don't work any more. > > Doug. > From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Tue Nov 24 16:22:06 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:22:06 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Known voyages of the Gipsy Message-ID: <200911241622.07027.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> I have put this summary together from information just to hand from my contact, supplemented from the Web: KNOWN VOYAGES OF THE GIPSY The Gipsy, a full rigged ship of 426 tons, built at Dundee in 1853. 1853 May 15 to Aug 15 - Southampton to Adelaide. 1854 July 13 to October 25 ? Isle of Wight to Auckland (continuing to Wellington and Nelson.) (This is the date on Peter and Denise's site, which seems to be from local knowledge. Lloyd's says she arrived at Auckland on the 18th.) 1856 Jun 21 to October 11 ? London to New Plymouth, N.Z. 1857 Gipsy having arrived at Batavia from Auckland and discharged her cargo, sailed for Singapore on 14 March with a cargo of rice, cinnamon and hides. On the 16th she struck a reef or submerged shoal near the most easterly of the Scharvogel Islands. "The crew had barely time to take to the boats before she went down. The captain and crew, 22 in number, in three boats, proceeded to Batavia, where they arrived on the evening of the 21st March." (Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June, 1857, quoting the "China Mail".) Other reports vary in the details only. Peter and Denise at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ourstuff/Gipsy1853.htm say that the Gipsy made only two trips to New Zealand. They have a full passenger list for the first trip. Both voyages are above. The dates seem to confirm that after the second trip, the Gipsy was used for trade. Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Tue Nov 24 16:30:54 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:30:54 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Known voyages of the Gipsy In-Reply-To: <200911241622.07027.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> References: <200911241622.07027.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Message-ID: <200911241630.54661.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Batavia was the Dutch name for Jakarta. Doug. On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:22:06 pm Doug Laidlaw wrote: > I have put this summary together from information just to hand from my > contact, supplemented from the Web: > > > KNOWN VOYAGES OF THE GIPSY > > The Gipsy, a full rigged ship of 426 tons, built at Dundee in 1853. > > 1853 May 15 to Aug 15 - Southampton to Adelaide. > > 1854 July 13 to October 25 ? Isle of Wight to Auckland (continuing to > Wellington and Nelson.) (This is the date on Peter and Denise's site, > which seems to be from local knowledge. Lloyd's says she arrived at > Auckland on the 18th.) > > 1856 Jun 21 to October 11 ? London to New Plymouth, N.Z. > > 1857 Gipsy having arrived at Batavia from Auckland and discharged her > cargo, sailed for Singapore on 14 March with a cargo of rice, cinnamon and > hides. On the 16th she struck a reef or submerged shoal near the most > easterly of the Scharvogel Islands. "The crew had barely time to take to > the boats before she went down. The captain and crew, 22 in number, in > three boats, proceeded to Batavia, where they arrived on the evening of the > 21st March." (Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June, 1857, quoting the "China > Mail".) Other reports vary in the details only. > > Peter and Denise at > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ourstuff/Gipsy1853.htm > > say that the Gipsy made only two trips to New Zealand. They have a full > passenger list for the first trip. Both voyages are above. The dates seem > to confirm that after the second trip, the Gipsy was used for trade. > > Doug. > > _______________________________________________ > boykett-announce mailing list > boykett-announce at douglaidlaw.net > http://douglaidlaw.net/mailman/listinfo/boykett-announce_douglaidlaw.net From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Tue Nov 24 20:13:56 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:13:56 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Known voyages of the Gipsy In-Reply-To: <200911241630.54661.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> References: <200911241622.07027.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> <200911241630.54661.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Message-ID: <200911242013.56199.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> I have now updated gipsy.html to put the info in a more logical sequence. I have summarised the latest findings in it. As well, I have restricted the page width to 1024 pixels. Even on my squarish screen at 1280x1024, lines of text were looking a bit long, and getting difficult to read. With TV-style wide screens coming in, I had to put some limit, and the old standard of 800 px seemed a bit small. With 185 px for the navigation sidebar, there are just over 800 px for the content. So if you have one of those monitors, the change will mean a large white area to the right of the page. Doug. On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:30:54 pm Doug Laidlaw wrote: > Batavia was the Dutch name for Jakarta. > > Doug. > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:22:06 pm Doug Laidlaw wrote: > > I have put this summary together from information just to hand from my > > contact, supplemented from the Web: > > From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Sun Nov 29 18:45:17 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:45:17 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] Charles Bolton Boykett Message-ID: <200911291845.17790.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> I misread the Victorian BMD Indexes. There are two columns, one for place of birth and one for place of death. Most of the Boykett death listings at about that time show a place of birth, but no place of death (makes sense?) What the entry was really saying was that Charles was _born_ at sea. Joan McEwing mentions that she had a card stating that Charles died at Emerald Hill, which she assumed was around Ballarat. Actually it was the name for South Melbourne back then. The University biographies state that at the time, Charles was living at his parents' home in South Melbourne. I will update the Web page about the Gipsy. The Woady Yaloak F.H. Society, at Smythesdale near Ballarat, mention that there is an entry for William in a donated collection, mainly taken from the Government Gazettes. I have written for details. Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Sun Nov 29 20:13:35 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:13:35 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] William Boykett of Boobbing's parents (perhaps)? Message-ID: <200911292013.35980.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> I don't want to do a Joan McEwing here :) Francis Musto is descended from Frank Boykett, the Vicar of Ruddington, a son of Thomas' elder brother Charles. On the back of his family tree is written: "In memory of John and Sarah Boykett of Bobbing Court. Sarah the wife of John died the 23rd of Feb 1780 in the 72nd year of her age. John Boykett died 7th March 1785 aged 70 years. Blessed are they which die in the Lord. Also James the son of William and Mary Boykett died the 22nd April 1789 aged 13 months. Edwin Boykett died 16th January 1791 aged 9 months." James was the twin of John, who went on to become a schoolmaster. That John married twice, and both wives were called Sarah, just to confuse things further. Edwin is another son that I have put on the tree, but his birth is not listed, only his burial, and his parents' names are not given. Perhaps he died before he could be baptised. The archivist has listed all the Boyketts for the period. Since John and Sarah Boykett were "of Bobbing Court" it is reasonable to assume that they were the parents of William the Bobbing landowner. He was born in about 1750, since he was 30 when he married. Are they identical with the John Boykett and Sarah Hearne, who are mentioned in the Canterbury archives as having married at Milton on 8 February, 1743? We suspect that the Boykett who repaired the church was that one. At the moment, this is only a guess, but it can be made to fit. Then again, many coincidences can be made to fit. In 1743, John would have been about 28, and Sarah would have been about 36. They did have a child William, their eldest, baptised on 29 May, 1744. In 1780, when the William we know married Mary Hutton, he would have been 36 or older. The archivist was of opinion that 36 is so different from 30 that he can't be the same person. But the only authority for his age in 1780 is the marriage licence, where his age is given as 30 then. The licence would have been handwritten, and perhaps there was confusion between a 0 and a 6. The archivist searched for baptisms between 1745 and 1755 and found none. Was the husband perhaps born just before 1745? Other searches from 1743 to 1791 found nobody more likely. As I said, it is only a hypothesis. Doug. From laidlaws at hotkey.net.au Sun Nov 29 21:58:20 2009 From: laidlaws at hotkey.net.au (Doug Laidlaw) Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:58:20 +1100 Subject: [Boykett-announce] William Boykett of Boobbing's parents (perhaps)? In-Reply-To: <200911292013.35980.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> References: <200911292013.35980.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Message-ID: <200911292158.20650.laidlaws@hotkey.net.au> Two extra comments on this: Firstly, John Boykett in Melbourne thought that William's father was James. When I asked him why, over the telephone, he could not recall without referring to his records, which were stored away. On the other hand, although the name Boykett is very old (in the 1851 census there was a woman in Islington, apparently unrelated) it does not appear to have been common in Kent, or at least, in the Bobbing area. Doug. On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:13:35 pm Doug Laidlaw wrote: > I don't want to do a Joan McEwing here :) > > Francis Musto is descended from Frank Boykett, the Vicar of Ruddington, a > son of Thomas' elder brother Charles. On the back of his family tree is > written: > > "In memory of John and Sarah Boykett of Bobbing Court. Sarah the wife of > John died the 23rd of Feb 1780 in the 72nd year of her age. John Boykett > died 7th March 1785 aged 70 years. Blessed are they which die in the Lord. > Also James the son of William and Mary Boykett died the 22nd April 1789 > aged 13 months. Edwin Boykett died 16th January 1791 aged 9 months." > > James was the twin of John, who went on to become a schoolmaster. That > John married twice, and both wives were called Sarah, just to confuse > things further. Edwin is another son that I have put on the tree, but his > birth is not listed, only his burial, and his parents' names are not given. > Perhaps he died before he could be baptised. The archivist has listed all > the Boyketts for the period. > > Since John and Sarah Boykett were "of Bobbing Court" it is reasonable to > assume that they were the parents of William the Bobbing landowner. He was > born in about 1750, since he was 30 when he married. Are they identical > with the John Boykett and Sarah Hearne, who are mentioned in the Canterbury > archives as having married at Milton on 8 February, 1743? We suspect that > the Boykett who repaired the church was that one. At the moment, this is > only a guess, but it can be made to fit. Then again, many coincidences can > be made to fit. > > In 1743, John would have been about 28, and Sarah would have been about 36. > They did have a child William, their eldest, baptised on 29 May, 1744. In > 1780, when the William we know married Mary Hutton, he would have been 36 > or older. The archivist was of opinion that 36 is so different from 30 > that he can't be the same person. But the only authority for his age in > 1780 is the marriage licence, where his age is given as 30 then. The > licence would have been handwritten, and perhaps there was confusion > between a 0 and a 6. The archivist searched for baptisms between 1745 and > 1755 and found none. Was the husband perhaps born just before 1745? Other > searches from 1743 to 1791 found nobody more likely. > > As I said, it is only a hypothesis. > > Doug. > > > _______________________________________________ > boykett-announce mailing list > boykett-announce at douglaidlaw.net > http://douglaidlaw.net/mailman/listinfo/boykett-announce_douglaidlaw.net > > !DSPAM:4b12525579718095298052!