|
|
Hi Connie, It is not entirely certain that Ruth was a MOORE. In 1708 James MOORE, age about 62, in a land deposition referred to "his brother Ninian BEALE." Based on that record, there have been claims that Ruth was a MOORE, and a sister to James. At the same time, Ninian BEALE gave a deposition regarding the same land tract that was witnessed by James MOORE Jun. If Ninian BEALL and James MOORE were "brothers"-in-law it could have been by: 1. Ninian BEALL's wife Ruth being a sister to James MOORE. 2. James MOORE's wife Mary being a sister to Ninian BEALL. 3. Their wives being sisters to each other, surname unknown. A James MOORE, Senr. in 1729 in a deposition gave his age as 105 and referred to the deposition 20 years ago by Col. Ninian BEALE and others. In 4 deeds of gift in 1735 Prince George's Co., MD James MOORE, Sr. gave land to his grandson James HOSKINSON, son George MOORE, son Benjamin MOORE, and son Peter MOORE. He signed the deeds James MOORE, Sr. "the 110" apparently in reference to his age. While there could be a James MOORE born ca. 1624 who had a son James Jr. born ca. 1646 who gave the 1708 deposition, it could also be the same man. He may have exaggerated his age as he grew older, and the 1708 and 1729/1735 James are the same person, with the James who witnessed Ninian's deposition being a son born say in the 1670s or 1680s. Who the father of this James (born say 1646) and of Ruth (if she is James's sister) would be is unknown. It would not be Richard MOORE and wife Jane of Calvert County as is commonly claimed, as in 1654 [when James would have been about 8], Jane stated her sons were Richard, Roger and Timothy. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000010/html/am10--395.html Rick Saunders http://home.netcom.com/~fzsaund/beall.html Notify Administrator about this message?
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate |
| © 2009 Ancestry.com |