RootsChat.Com

In my fathers Royal Navy service records payment and victualling section it states he served on SS Atlantic between 23 January 1945 -21 June 1945.  (From 22 June 1945 he was D.E.M.S New York).  Can anyone direct me to where I can find information and movement cards of SS Atlantic between the dates Dad served on her.  Research comes up with the Atlantic that sank in 1870. 
Thank you

On the 1851 census my ancestor aged 21 describes himself as a retail brewer.  He lived at 66 Dartmouth Street, Aston.  Does anyone know if this means he sold beer from his home ?
Thank you

This is a long shot but I am hoping someone may be able to shed light on my query.
I have a photo copy of a piece of paper with notes about my family tree. The note was written by a second cousin 2 x removed (1899-1996). I believe the notes were written around 1920.  Some of the writing is ineligible. What I have been able to read is "Creswell something attached to Creswells family rightly Lord Middleton"   Melicent Creswell (1810-1847) was her great grandmothers maiden name.
Google searches for Middleton/Creswell have proved negative and also an extensive FindMyPast newspaper search negative. 
Thank you
Sandra

Can anyone please help me with the following regarding my third great grandfather Thomas May and his family regarding a removal order on 17 January 1834 from St Marys Nottingham to Whiston in Yorkshire. The order was contested by the Whiston overseers and the following was printed in the Nottingham Journal on 11 April 1834 :
"This was an appeal against the order of removal of Thomas May from the parish of St Mary, in this town to the parish of Whiston in the county of York-Mr Oakley appeared for the appellants and Mr Hurst for the respondents- The circumstances were briefly stated by Mr Hurst; by which it appeared it was admitted by the appellants that the pauper had been apprenticed and served forty days at Whiston. The only question submitted for the consideration of the Court was, whether the indenture was a valid one. Mr Oakley contended it was not, as notice of the intended binding had not been approved agreeably to the Act of the 56th of George III. The court after hearing Mr Hurst confirmed the order subject to a case to be heard in the Court of Kings Bench"

I don't understand what this means
 "the intended binding had not been proved agreeably to the Act of the 56th George III"
and was there to be another hearing

Any help will be much appreciated
Sandra