Author Topic: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby  (Read 359 times)

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,688
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #27 on: Friday 16 November 18 16:52 GMT (UK) »
I see the second amount as this:

xxvjli xiiijs viijd

A very tentative stab at the first amount:

lxvijli xiiijs ?

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,699
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #28 on: Friday 16 November 18 17:02 GMT (UK) »
These readings look good, but still puzzling. And apparently a large chunk of the personal estate lost to debts and funeral expenses.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,688
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: William and Thomas Bent of Cosby
« Reply #29 on: Saturday 17 November 18 04:56 GMT (UK) »
I have done a calculation on Thomas's amounts as listed in the image.

20 s
53 s 4 d
40 s
53 s 4 d
13 s 4 d
20 s
14 li
15 li
18 li
13 s 4 d
6 s 8 d
5 li
10 li
30 s
40 s
5 s
15 li
50 s
40 s
20 s
40 s

= 77 li 443 s 24 d

= 99 li 5 s 0 d

We can't see the descriptions, so have to assume that everything in the list is a positive amount.

Presumably the difference is due to subtraction from this gross amount of the noted all thynges dyscharged.