Surname in will (1700)

[Alexander.]

Struggling to read the surname of the son-in-law John named in this will...thought of a couple possibilities but interested to know what you think it might be.

The will is from Nottinghamshire, written in 1700.

Thank you!

[Watson]

Perhaps John Steinton

[horselydown86]

The writer has an idiosyncratic e, which can be seen in divided and Children (line 2) and several instances of Item.

Taking that into account, we get a probable Stenton.

[Watson]

I'm torn now.  While acknowledging the curious "e", I think an exaggerated version of it would be needed to read this as "Stenton", because the vertical stroke is further to the right, so it could be an "i".  There is also what looks like a dot above the line, but that is not certain.  Against that, I believe "Stenton" is more common, though "Steinton" does occur and perhaps especially in Nottinghamshire.  As I said, I'm torn now ...

[arthurk]

My first thought was Steinton, but I didn't have time to reply earlier, and now horselydown has managed to convince me it's Stenton. For a similar 'e', look at Item at the start of the same line - that can't possibly be Iteim.

Most of the dots (on i's) are darker than this one, and a little bit bigger, almost like a grave accent in some cases, which makes me wonder if this is a blot or a mistake that's been partly erased. On Son in Law just before this there's a second faint dot next to the correct one - that can't be intentional.

[Raybistre]

i read it as Stenton before reading any replies.
Ray

[Alexander.]

Thank you everyone, I also thought Stenton. Unfortunately the PRs for this parish don't survive before 1709, so finding much about this family prior to that has been challenging.

[Watson]

The vertical stroke in "Item" is not as far to the right as in the problem word.

The dot is a bit feint, but it seems a big coincidence that there is a dot in just the right place. In all other cases in the sample, a dot means it is part of an "i".