text:
back to 1875 page (see that page for notes, and for link to search engine page)
Huron Co., 1875, part 2
to part 1
birth place is given before residence
|#003813-75 (Huron Co): William AITCHESON, 29, Doctor of Medicine, Paris Canada, Ortonville Michigan U.S., s/o William & Jane AITCHESON married Isabella MURDIE, 23, McKillop, same, d/o Andrew MURDIE & Mary ROSS. Wit: Michael MURDIE and Archibald G. McLACHLIN, both of McKillop
|#003657-75 (Huron Co): Samuel C. ALLEN, 22, farmer, Colborne, same, s/o John & Elizabeth ALLEN married Amelia Grace TRIBBLE, 16, Colborne, same, d/o James & Elizabeth TRIBBLE. Wit: Lewis TRIBBLE and Eliza Alice ALLEN, both of Colborne. December 25, 1875 at Colborne
|#003681-75 (Huron Co): David ALEXANDER, 25, farmer, Ontario, West Wawanosh, s/o Thomas ALEXANDER & Sarah McEWAN married Mary KINAHAN, 26, Ontario, West Wawanosh, d/o William KINAHAN & Margaret ALEXANDER. Wit: Patrick KINAHAN and Margaret ALEXANDER, both of West Wawanosh. March 23, 1875 at Turnberry
|#003565-75 (Huron Co): William BAIRD, 28, dairy man, Scotland, Tuckersmith, s/o Thomas BAIRD & Jane BRYDON married Jane LAWRENCE, 23, Scotland, Tuckersmith, s/o John LAWRENCE & Helen HENDERSON. Wit: John LAWRENCE of Tuckersmith and Sarah BAIRD of Stanley. September 28, 1875 at Tuckersmith.
|#003567-75 (Huron Co): David BAIRD, 27, wagon maker, Scotland, Tuckersmith, s/o James BAIRD & Jane McLEOD married Fanny SMITH, 25, Ontario, Tuckersmith, d/o Andrew SMITH & Maria CRINTLEY. Wit: George BAIRD Junr of Stanley and Maggie Smith of Egmondville. November 17, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003831-75 (Huron Co): Joseph BAYNARD, 24, farmer, Ontario, Grey, s/o William & Rebecca RAYNARD married Caroline JACKSON, 19, Ireland, Grey, d/o John & Eliza JACKSON. Wit: C. STAFFORD and Caroline STAFFORD, both of Brussels. October 18, 1875 at Brussels
|#003826-75 (Huron Co): George A. BEAR, 39, widower, tailor, England, Brussels, s/o George & Elizabeth BEAR married Annie MURPHY, 25, Ontario, Brussels, d/o Gabriel & Mary Ann MURPHY. Wit: J. D. PENNINGTON and Sarah MURPHY, both of Brussels. July 15, 1875 at Brussels
|#003911-75 (Huron Co): Louis BERTRAND, 26, farmer, Germany, Crediton, s/o Louis BERTRAND & Catherine SCHENALS? married Sarah EILBER, 20, Philadelphia, Stephen, d/o Jacob EILBER & Sarah FINKPEIN. Wit: Luis THEIL and Emma EILBER, both of Stephen. July 4, 1875 at Crediton
|#003654-75 (Huron Co): Samuel BISSET, 28, miller, Ontario, Colborne, s/o Robert BISSET & Mary Ann VANSTONE married Jane YOUNG, 21, Ontario, Colborne, d/o Gordon YOUNG & Elizabeth SMITH. Wit: William YOUNG and Alexander YOUNG, both of Colborne. June 30, 1875 at Colborne
|#003588-75 (Huron Co): Marshall BLOOMFIELD, 22, farmer, Lower Canada, McGillivray, s/o David & Martha BLOOMFIELD married Hattie EDWARDS, 23, Esquesing, McGillivray, d/o William & Polly EDWARDS. Wit: Alexander ROBINSON and Emily KILLANAY, both of Exeter. November 27, 1875 at Exeter
|004390-76 (Huron Co): Abraham BOLTON, 25, farmer, Canada, Usborne, s/o Samuel & Mary BOLTON married Mary STEWART, 19, Canada, Usborne, d/o Andrew & Margaret STEWART. Wit: James GLENN and Eliza Jane STEWART, both of Usborne. December 22, 1875 at Usborne
|#003721-75 (Huron Co): John BRADNOCK, 40, farmer, Scotland, East Wawanosh, s/o Thomas BRADNOCK & Janet WILSON married Rachel COWAN, 25, Scotland, East Wawanosh, d/o John COWAN & Janet STEWART. Wit: William STEWART and Elizabeth COWAN, both of East Wawanosh. June 30, 1875 at East Wawanosh
|#003656-75 (Huron Co): Richard BROWN, 27, school teacher, Ireland, Village of Nile, s/o Richard & Jane BROWN married Munroe Rice SMITH, 25, Canada, Village of Nile, d/o Luther & Mary RICE. Wit: Robert CLENDENNING, D. E. MUNROE and William McVITTIE, all of Dungannon. September 8, 1875 at Village of Nile
|#003800-75 (Huron Co): John BROWN, 35, widower, farmer, England, Minto, s/o James & Jane BROWN married Rose Ann BAWKS, 26, Ontario, Howick, d/o James & Esther BAWKS. Wit: William KAY and Elizabeth BAWKS, both of Howick. May 12, 1875 at Howick
|#003560-75 (Huron Co): George BUCHANAN, 27, Doctor of Medicine, s/o Alex BUCHANAN & Margaret MOIR married Emeline ZELLAR, 20, Waterloo Twp, Hay, d/o Michael ZELLAR & Clarissa LIEBLER. Wit: Lizzie GILCHRIST and Isaac B. SHANTZ, both of Zurich. February 10, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003829-75 (Huron Co): Leonard Washington BUTTON, 22, professor of music, Ontario, Morris, s/o George & Matilda BUTTON married Sarah Louisa DULMAGE, 22, Ontario, Morris, d/o Jonathan & Christianna DULMAGE. Wit: William DULMAGE and Mary Jane McVITY, both of Morris. October 28, 1875 at Brussels
|004505-76 (Huron Co): David CAMPBELL, 21, farmer, Puslinch Canada, Culross Bruce Co, s/o Henry & Elizabeth CAMPBELL married Charlotte ROBINSON, 23, Goderich Twp, Goderich, d/o John & Margaret ROBINSON. Wit: William McALLISTER and Mary YOUNG, both of Goderich. October 5, 1875 at Goderich
|#003804-75 (Huron Co): David S. CAMPBELL, 33, surveyor, Aberdeen Scotland, Mitchell Ont, s/o James CAMPBELL & Jane GRIGG married Helen MURDIE, 23, McKillop, same, d/o Andrew MURDIE & Mary ROSS. Wit: C.L. HULBERT of Mitchell and George MURDIE of McKillop. January 4, 1875 at McKillop
|#003537-75 (Huron Co): Peter CANTELON, 40, widower, farmer, Ireland, Turnberry, s/o Peter & Mary CANTELON married Elizabeth McINTYRE, 32, Canada, Morris, d/o William & Ann Jane McINTYRE. Wit: Richard PEARIN of Turnberry and Margaret J. ARMSTRONG of Morris. February 16, 1875 at Wingham
|#003720-75 (Huron Co): Arthur CANTLON , 42, yeoman, Tipperary Ireland, Morris, s/o Peter & Mary Ann CANTLON married Mary Ann ELLIS, 28, Co Cavan Ireland, Morris, d/o Arthur & Ann ELLIS. Wit: William WILSON of Morris and Louisa PHILIP of Blyth. August 16, 1875 at Blyth
|#003680-75 (Huron Co): Arthur CHRISLER, 32, farmer, Ancaster, same, s/o James & Mary CHRISLER married Ellen J. HIGGINS, 23, Stanley, same, d/o Joseph & Alice HIGGINS. Wit: Joseph and Jane KITCHEN of Turnberry. March 18, 1875 at Turnberry
|#003592-75 (Huron Co): Samuel B. CLINBOURN, 25, carpenter, Canada, Hay, s/o Samuel & Leah CLINBOURN married Elizabeth KESTLE, 25, England, Stephen, d/o Pascoe & Mary Ann KESTLE. Wit: David CLINBOURN of Hay and Sarah M. KESTLE of Stephen. December 29, 1875 at Exeter
|#003591-75 (Huron Co): James CLING, 24, farmer, Canada, Hay, s/o Thomas & Mary CLING married Hannah GOODMAN, 21, Canada, Hay, d/o James & Nancy GOODMAN. Wit: George SWEET of Stephen and Pringle WESTMILL of McGillivray. December 22, 1875 at Exeter
|#003556-75 (Huron Co): Joseph CLOUGHTON, 26, moulder, Ontario, Exeter, s/o Daniel & Mary married Mary Ann HOSKIN, 19, Ontario, Exeter, d/o William & Elizabeth. Wit: Samuel OKE of Exeter. September 29, 1875 at Tuckersmith.
|4338-76 William COOK, 35, farmer, Chingaucousy, Howick twp., s/o Joseph COOK & Eliza, married Laima HUGHILL, 21, Etobicoke, McKillop, d/o William HUGHILL & Jane, witn: William & Jane HUGHILL of McKillop, 1 Nov 1875 at res of William Hughill, McKillop twp
|#003586-75 (Huron Co): Henry CORBETT, 23, labourer, Canada, Stephen, s/o William Henry CORBETT & Laticia FALLS married Johanna DAILY, 22, Ireland, Stephen, d/o John & Mary Ann DAILY. Wit: James EARL of Exeter. November 12, 1875 at Exeter.
|#003662-75 (Huron Co): Alexander COUSINS, 22, mechanic, Mornington Twp, Wingham, s/o William & Ann COUSINS married Margaret BARKER, 23, Oneida, Morris, d/o John & Eliza Ann BARKER. Wit: John KNOX and Martha Ellen BARKER, res not given. February 29, 1875 at Morris
|#003566-75 (Huron Co): Andrew COWAN, 25, teacher, Durham Co, Morris, s/o Alexander COWAN & Mary Jane CAMPBELL married Sarah EDEN, 23, Chicago U.S., Tuckersmith, d/o Benjamin EDEN & Jane LATIMER. Wit: Malcolm McDERMID and Peter COOPER, res not given. September 24, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003603-75 (Huron Co): William DAVIS, 24, farmer, Quebec, Biddulph, s/o William & Elizabeth DAVIS married Ann NEIL, 20, Biddulph, same, d/o Richard & Elizabeth NEIL. Wit: Mary NEIL and John NEIL, both of Biddulph. March 17, 1875 at Exeter
|004374-76 (Huron Co): James DEEN, 22, mechanic, Canada, Colborne, s/o Eugene & Mary DEEN married Mary HANDLEN, 22, Canada, Clinton, d/o Felix & Catherine HANDLEN. Wit: Patrick SULLIVAN of Ashfield and Catherine BLAKE of McKillop. November 22, 1875 at Hullett (RC)
|#003837-75 (Huron Co): David DOULL, 48, farmer, Scotland, Grey, s/o Alexander DOULL & Ann BRUCE married Margaret McNAIR, 36, Scotland, Grey, d/o Neil McNAIR & Jane McFARLANE. Wit: Alexander McNAIR and John McTAGGART, both of Grey. December 15, 1875 at Brussels
|#003834-75 (Huron Co): William DULMAGE, 22, farmer, Ontario, Morris, s/o Jonathan & Christiana DULMAGE married Mary Jane McVITY, 19,. Ontario, Morris, d/o Henry & Eliza McVITY. Wit: Sidney KING and Harriet DULMAGE, both of Morris. December 2, 1875 at Brussels
|#003812-75 (Huron Co): Charles James DULMAGE, 27, farmer, Limerick Ireland, McKillop, s/o James DULMAGE & Lucy DOB married Agnes CANMORE, 26, Kills Kirkcudbright Scotland, McKillop, d/o Hugh CANMORE & Jane WILSON. Wit: John CANMORE and John KERR, both of McKillop. November 9, 1875 at McKillop
|#003598-75 (Huron Co): William DUNSFORD, 30, widower, Canada, Stephen, s/o William & Catherine DUNSFORD married Caroline ACHESON, 16, Canada, Stephen, d/o Joseph & Mary ACHESON. Wit: Robert SANDERS and James ACHESON, both of Exeter. February 3, 1875 at Exeter.
|#003810-75 (Huron Co): George DURIE, 22, farmer, McKillop, same, s/o James DURIE & Elizabeth AITCHESON married Jane Gibson AITCHESON, 20, Blandford Ont, McKillop, d/o William & Jane AITCHESON. Wit: John CANNON of McKillop and William AITCHESON, M.D., of Michigan U.S. October 22, 1875 at McKillop.
|#003894 (Huron Co): Alfred George EASOM, farm laborer, Waplade, Lincolnshire England, Hullett, s/o Thomas & Charlotte EASOM married Annie Maria SMITH, 20, Cutney Nottinghamshire England, Hullett. d/o John & Mary SMITH. Wit: William EASOM and Elizabeth A. FOSTER, both of Hullett. December 20, 1875 at Hullett
|#003531-75 (Huron Co): John ELLIOTT, 29, widower, farmer, Goderich Twp, Ashfield, s/o John & Elizabeth ELLIOTT married Margaret Jane STOTHERS, 22, Wawanosh, same, d/o Stephen & Jane STOTHERS. Wit: Stephen STOTHERS Junr of Clinton and Francis J. ELLIOTT of Goderich Twp. March 10, 1875 at Wawanosh
|#003587-75 (Huron Co): William David ELVIN, 25, miller, Whitby, McGillivray, s/o William & Faith ELVIN married Ann Elizabeth Covil MACEY, 20, Markham, McGillivray, d/o John & Jane MACY. Wit: William HAWKSHAW and Marie HAWKSHAW, both of Exeter. November 8, 1895 at Exeter.
|#003589-75 (Huron Co): Thomas FENWICK, 26, farmer, England, Zurich, s/o Thomas & Harriet FENWICK married Mary SMITH, 22, Hay, same, d/o Dougall & Ann SMITH . Wit: Thomas SELLARS and Marianne SELLARS, both of Hay. December 14, 1875 at Exeter.
|#003578-75 (Huron Co): John Augustus FISHER, 23, barber, Canada, Exeter, s/o John & Margaret FISHER married Betsy Jane HEARD, 19, England, Exeter, d/o John & Wilmot HEARD. Wit: Albert and Eliza POWELL of Exeter. July 21, 1875 at Exeter
|#003805-75 (Huron Co): Alexander FOSTER, 26, farmer, Co Tyrone Ireland, Stanley, s/o George FOSTER & Latisha KEYS married Margaret McLUGIE, 32, Forfarshire Scotland, Stanley, d/o John McKENZIE & Isabella BRUCE. Wit: Janet LEITCH and Thomas LEITCH, res not given. February 17, 1875 at McKillop
|#003682-75 (Huron Co): George FUNSTON, 24, farmer, Ireland, Proton, s/o James FUNSTON & Mary LOWRY married Angelina GRIFFITH, 22, Ireland, Turnberry, d/o Hamilton GRIFFITH & Mary A. MATHEWS. Wit: Richard CODE of Wawanosh and Elizabeth GRIFFITH of Turnberry. March 30, 1875 at Turnberry
|#003925-75 (Huron Co): Richard GARDINER, 28, farmer, Stephen, McGillivray, s/o Robert & Harriet GARDINER married Emelina HAWKINS, 19, England, McGillivray, d/o James & Emelina HAWKINS. Wit: John LAWSON of Stephen and Thomas HODGINS of McGillivray. August 2, 1875 at Stephen
|#003534-75 (Huron Co): William GARDNER, 32, farmer, Streetsville Ont, Ashfield, s/o William & Sarah GARDNER married Catherine E. McDONAGH, 19, Ashfield, same, d/o Alexander & Catherine McDONAGH. Wit: James H. GARDNER and Maria McDONAGH, both of Ashfield. March 31, 1875 at Ashfield
|#003923-75 (Huron Co): Samuel GEIGER, 22, farmer, Hay, same, s/o David & Magdelina GEIGER married Rachael ELLENBAUER, 19, Blandford, Hay, d/o Sam & Lea ELENBAUER. Wit: Henry BOCKARLAUM? and Maria MEYER, both of Crediton. July 8, 1875 at Crediton
|#003920-75 (Huron Co): Godfried GEISER, 30, laborer, Germany, Stephen, s/o Michael & Barbara GEISER married Wilhelmina GUNTER, 19, Germany, Stephen, d/o Mathias & Rowina GUNTER. Wit: Samuel STAHL and Annie BRAUN, both of Stephen. July 20, 1875 at Stephen.
|#003595-75 (Huron Co): Henry GILLEN, 22, farmer, England, Usborne, s/o John & Jane GILLEN married Mary BAILY, 18, Canada, not given, d/o Richard & Mary BAILY. Wit: Richard QUANCE and John C. CLARK, both of Usborne. December 16, 1875 at Exeter
|#003532-75 (Huron Co): Joseph GIVENS, 21, carpenter, Canada, Ashfield, s/o Joseph & Margaret GIVENS married Mary Ann BLACK, 19, Ashfield, same, d/o Arthur & Sarah BLACK. Wit: William STOTHERS and Catherine STOTHERS, both of Dungannon Village. January 22, 1875 at Ashfield.
|#003653-75 (Huron Co): Alexander GLEN, 34, farmer, Ontario, Colborne, s/o John GLEN & Margaret YOUNG married Janet STRACHAN, 19, Scotland, Colborne, d/o James STRACHAN & Margaret KIRK. Wit: James STRACHAN and Archibald STRACHAN, both of Colborne. June 1, 1875 at Colborne
|#003922-75 (Huron Co): Michael GOETZ, 52, widower, farmer, Germany, Fullerton, s/o Michael & Margaret GOETZ married Louisa NEY, 48, widow, Germany, Fullerton, d/o August & Caroline KLEIMANN. Wit: Henry SWEITZER and Frederica SWEITZER, both of Stephen. September 11, 1875 at Stephen
|#003811-75 (Huron Co): Robert GOVENLOCK, 48, widower, farmer, Selkirk Scotland, McKillop, s/o John & Margaret GOVENLOCK married Janet Louisa Rossilina VANEGMOND, 28, Hullett, same, s/o Edward VANEGMOND & Elizabeth RUNCIMAN. Wit: Charles WILSON and Elizabeth FOSTER, both of Seaforth. October 27, 1875 at Hullett
|004437-76 (Huron Co): George GREY, 57, widower, farmer, England, Turnberry, s/o Thomas & Jemima married Catherine BAKER, 45, widow, Canada, Culross, d/o not given BAKER & Polly FIRMAN. Wit: William VANSTONE & Jane VANSTONE, not given. October 19, 1875 at Wingham
|#003806-75 (Huron Co): Hugh GRIEVE, 22, farmer, McKillop, same, s/o James GRIEVE & Isabella SCOTT married Caroline LESLIE, 22, Toronto, McKillop, d/o James LESLIE & Jane BELL. Wit: Robert GRIEVE and William HABKIRK, res not given. February 11, 1875 at Harperhay
|#003892-75 (Huron Co): James GRIEVE, 30, farmer, McKillop, same, s/o James GRIEVE & Isabella SCOTT married Jessie SCOTT, 21, McKillop, same, d/o James SCOTT & Isabella DICKSON. Wit: R. JAMIESON of Seaforth and J. SOMERVILLE of McKillop. May 19, 1875 at McKILLOP
|#003891-75 (Huron Co): Robert GRIEVE, 26, farmer, McKillop, same, s/o Thomas GRIEVE & Catherine CALDER married Hannah DORSEY, 24, McKillop, Seaforth, d/o Mathew DORSEY & Ann RYAN. Wit: William EASTON and Andrew CALDER, both of Seaforth. May 24, 1875 at McKillop
|#003892-75 (Huron Co): Edward HAYHOE, 32, clergyman, Norfolk England, Hamilton Ontario, s/o Edward & Mary HAYHOE married Susanna Sarah MUNNINGS, 21, Uxbridge Canada, Colborne, d/o Benjamin & Maria MUNNINGS. Wit: John MUNNINGS & Elizabeth BERN, both of Colborne. November 25, 1875 at Manchester
|#003597-75 (Huron Co): George HENDERSON, farmer, Canada, Usborne, s/o Peter & Jane HENDERSON married Elizabeth BLATCHFORD, 20, Canada, Usborne, d/o Richard & Rebecca BLATCHFORD. Wit: Francis WHITTICK of Exeter and John BLATCHFORD of Usborne. January 22, 1875 at Exeter
|#003914-75 (Huron Co): Thomas HICKS, 28, farmer, England, Stephen, s/o John & Grace HICKS married Mary Jane ELLIOTT, 25, Stephen, same, d/o David & Sarah ELLIOTT. Wit: Richard HICKS of Bernie and John PAISLEY of London Twp. February 25, 1875 at Stephen.
|004506-76 (Huron Co): Allen HILL, 21, labourer, Wisconsin, Goderich, s/o Allen & Jane HILL married Margaret VANCOUVER, 28, widow, Beverly, Goderich, d/o James & Rachel THOMSON. Wit: William ADAMS and Elizabeth ADAMS, both of Goderich. July 21, 1875 at Goderich
|#003559-75 (Huron Co): William James HODGINS, 21, brick layer, s/o George HODGINS & Charlotte COLLINS married Harriet Matilda BISSETT, 24, Ontario, Exeter, d/o Richard BISSETT & Ann GORDON. Wit: Alice CAMERON of Kippen. January 19, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003547-75 (Huron Co): John F. HODGINS, 23, merchant, Biddulph, Wingham, s/o James & Catherine married Luisa Jane BIRTCH, 21, Richmond Ont, Wingham, d/o William & Eliza. Wit: Ada BIRTCH and Dora GRIFFIN, both of Wingham. October 20, 1875 at Wingham
|#003715-75 (Huron Co): John HOPPER, 29, farmer, Devonshire England, Morris, s/o John HOPPER & Grace JAMES married Sarah CORBETT, 24, widow, South Monaghan Ontario, East Wawanosh, d/o James GRIGG & Jemima BROWN. Wit: William GRIGG of Morris and Elizabeth JOHNSTON of East WAWANOSH. January 7, 1875 at East Wawanosh
|#003893-75 (Huron Co): John HUNKING, 22, yeoman, Hullett, same, s/o John & Alice HUNKING married Martha Jane HOWSON, 20, Esquesing, Hullett, d/o Joseph & Janet HOWSON. Wit: Isaac LAWRENCE and Mary Ann HUNKING, both of Hullett. December 3, 1875 at Hullett.
|#003596-75 (Huron Co): Theodore HUTCHINSON, 25, artisan, Owen Sound, Exeter, s/o James & Sarah E. HUTCHINSON married Amelia BURNS, 24, Tecumseh, Blanshard, d/o John & Amelia CERDICK. Wit: James & Bernice HUTCHINSON of London and Exeter. January 27, 1875 at Exeter
|003577-75 (Huron Co): Henry W. HUTTON, 22, insurance agent, Woodstock, St. Mary's, s/o W. L. & Catherine HUTTON married Mary Ann VERITY, 21, Exeter, same, d/o William H. & Mary Jane VERITY. Wit: P. R. PARSONS of Toronto and J. H. CARTER of St. Mary's. June 10, 1875 at Exeter
|#003893-75 (Huron Co): John J. IRVINE, 26, farmer, Blanshard Perth Co, McKillop, s/o Thomas IRVINE & Ruth DUNSMORE married Sarah MENARY, 25, Caledon, McKillop, d/o John MENARY & Jane SHANNON. Wit: John GIBSON and Mary SHANNON, both of McKillop. June 9, 1875 at McKillop.
|#003664-75 (Huron Co): James JACKSON, 26, farmer, Yorkshire England, Morris, s/o John & Hannah JACKSON married Matilda Charlotte LUNDY, 22, Kingston, Morris, d/o Henry & Sarah Ann LUNDY. Wit: Thomas SKELTON and George JACKSON, res not given. March 18, 1875 at Brussels
|#003562-75 (Huron Co): Sydney JOHNS, 29, farmer, Ontario, Tuckersmith, s/o Robert JOHNS & Marry PERRIN married Jane CARNOCHAN, 27, Ontario, Tuckersmith, d/o Robert CARNOCHAN & Ann LANDSBOROUGH. Wit: James CARNOCHAN and Lydia JOHNS, both of Tuckersmith. January 8, 1875 at Tuckersmith.
|#003671-75 (Huron Co): William Henry JOHNSON, 23, miller, Hastings Co, Lucknow, s/o William JOHNSON & Susan WATSON married Mary Jane BURNS, 20, Huron Twp, Belfast, d/o Thomas BURNS & Sarah STANLEY. Wit: Robert MULLIN of Belfast and Robert JOHNSON of Lucknow. February 9, 1875 at Belfast.
|#003581-75 (Huron Co): Thomas John KESTLE, 24, farmer, Canada, Usborne, s/o John & Harriet KESTLE married Mary Ann ROWE, 21, Canada, Stephen d/o Thomas & Anistas(?) ROWE. Wit: J. W. ROWE of Stephen and J. R. KESTLE of Usborne. October 19, 1875.
|#003919-75 (Huron Co): James KING, 27, farmer, Canada, Stephen, s/o Joseph & Elizabeth KING married Mary WARD, 24, Canada, McGillivray, d/o William & Mary WARD. Wit: John WARD and Matilda KING, both of Stephen. November 25, 1875 at Crediton.
|#003913-75 (Huron Co): John KNIGHT, 56, farmer, England, Stephen, s/o William & Maria KNIGHT married Sarah ASHELFORD, 52, England, Stephen, d/o Robert & Ann HAWKINS. Wit: Joseph PEMBERTON of London Twp and George PEMBERTON of Stephen. January 6, 1875 at Stephen
|#003899-75 (Huron Co): John KNOX, 29, carriage maker, Canada, Goderich, s/o Adam KNOX & Ann WHITE married Margaret Elizabeth HINCKS, 22, Canada, Goderich Twp, d/o Harvey & Ann HINCKS. Wit: Ann LONDON and T. G. or H. G. HINCKS, both of Goderich Twp. May 7, 1875 at Goderich Twp
|#003824-75 (Huron Co): John KNOX, 34, farmer, Ontario, Morris, s/o George & Mary KNOX married Martha BAKER, 21, Oneida, Morris, d/o John & Elisa Jane BAKER. Wit: William H. HUME and Elwin J. EALLEPHER(?), both of Morris. July 12, 1875 at Brussels.
|#003669-75 (Huron Co): William Henry KNOX, 28, farmer, Canada, Morris, s/o George KNOX & Mary McILROY married Eliza J. GALLAGHER, 23, Canada, Morris, d/o James GALLAGHER & Martha COULTER. Wit: James KNOX and Mary McRAE, both of Morris
|#003917-75 (Huron Co): Conrad KUHN, 25, carpenter, Waterloo Co, Stephen, s/o John & Hannah KUHN married Elizabeth SWEITZER, 22, South Easthope, d/o Henry & Frederika SWEITZER. Wit: Jacob BRAUN and Caroline SWEITZER, res not given. August 3, 1875 at Stephen (also 4323-76)
|#003568-75 (Huron Co): John KYLE, 27, farmer, Trafalgar, Stanley, s/o William KYLE & Mary COCHRANE married Mary GEMMILL, 21, Tuckersmith, same, d/o Robert GEMMILL & Jane HAY. Wit: William KYLE of Stanley and Agnes GEMMILL of Tuckersmith. November 5, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003833-75 (Huron Co): William LEE, 50, widower, farmer, Ireland, McKillop, s/o Thomas & Ann LEE married Susan BIGGARS, 44, widow, Ireland, McKillop, d/o David & Eliza not given. Wit: Philip SPARLING and Ann SPARLING, both of Brussels. November 1, 1875 at Brussels.
|#003665-75 (Huron Co): Alexander LEGERWOOD, 30, farmer, Ireland, Greenock Ontario, s/o James LEGERWOOD & Elizabeth WALLACE married Anabella JOHNSTON, 18, Morris, same, d/o John JOHNSTON & Jane McCUTCHEON. Wit: William JOHNSTON of Morris and Ann Jane LEGERWOOD of Greenock. March 17, 1875 at Morris
|#003558-75 (Huron Co): William LOGAN, 22, farmer, Stanley, same, s/o James LOGAN & Catherine MOONEY married Margaret McDERMID, 22, Ontario, Stanley, d/o John McDERMID & Catherine MATLOCK. Wit: Alexander McBEATH and Frank DIXON, both of Stanley. January 6, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003889-75 (Huron Co): George LORENZ, 21, clerk, Germany, Hanover Bruce Co, s/o Christian & Catherine LORENZ married Amand STEUERNAGEL, 21, Waterloo Co, same, d/o Conrad & Catherine STEUERNAGEL. Wit: August EGERT of Wawanosh and Bertha STUMPF of Bentinck Ont. September 21, 1875 at Hullett
|#003895-75 (Huron Co): William Henry MAY, 24, saddler, Canada, Seaforth, s/o William Henry & Sarah Ann MAY married Margaret PHILLIPS, 20, Canada, Goderich Twp, d/o P. & M. H. ENITICKNAP. Wit: Alfred MAY of Hullett and G. JENKINS of Holmesville. July 29, 1875 at Holmesville
|#003683-75 (Huron Co): Charles McCLEAN, 22, farmer, Ontario, West Wawanosh, s/o Archibald & Mary McCLEAN married Jannett MOWBRAY, 18, Ontario, West Wawanosh, d/o Joseph & Jannett MOWBRAY. Wit: George MOWBRAY and Rachel COOK, both of West Wawanosh. May 4, 1875 at Bluevale
|004415-76 (Huron Co): John McCUTCHEON, 23, farmer, West Gwillimbury, Morris, s/o John & Hannah McCUTCHEON married Martha SMITH, 17, Beverly, Morris, d/o Joseph & Margaret SMITH. Wit: John JOHNSTON and Margaret Jane JOHNSTON, both of Morris. December 1, 1875 at Morris
|#003670-75 (Huron Co): Donald McDONALD, 36, farmer, Prince Edward, Kinloss, s/o John McDONALD & Mary MARTIN married Mary McKENZIE, 22, Scotland, West Wawanosh, d/o George & Hannah McKENZIE. Wit: John PATTERSON of Kinloss and Alexander CAMERON of Wawanosh. February 4, 1875 at West Wawanosh
|#003896-75 (Huron Co): Robert McILWAIN, 26, farmer, Goderich Twp, same, s/o Samuel McILWAIN & Agnes JOHNSTON married Isabella KIRKPATRICK, 18, Goderich Twp, same, d/o John KIRKPATRICK & Ann ROBERTSON. Wit: Hugh McILWAIN & Charles William KIRKPATRICK, both of Goderich Twp. December 15, 1875 at Goderich Twp
|#003542-75 (Huron Co): Robert McINDOO, 28, merchant, Cavan Twp Durham Co, Wingham, s/o Matthew McINDOO & Mary CARTER married Annie Elizabeth McINDRY, 20, widow, Etobicoke Canada, Wingham, d/o John FOWLER & Ann Flesher BRADLEY. Wit: William McINDOO and Rev. George DAVIES, both of Wingham. December 22, 1875 at Wingham
|#003654-75 (Huron Co): Daniel McKENZIE, 36, farmer, Ontario, Esquesing, s/o John McKENZIE Hannah COX married Barbara BOYD, 32, Ontario, Colborne, d/o George BOYD & Catherine McGEACHY. Wit: George MORRIS and Alexander KING, both of Colborne. July 7, 1875 at Colborne
|#003652-75 (Huron Co): Peter McLAREN, 32, hotel keeper, Canada, Maitlandville, s/o Duncan McLAREN & Janet ANDERSON married Hattie Eva THOMAS, 24, Pennsylvania U.S., same, d/o George THOMAS & Emma EDEN. Wit: David McLAREN and Mary McLAREN, both of Maitlandville. May 6, 1875 at Maitlandville
|#003564-75 (Huron Co): Duncan McLEAN, 46, widower, LaChute Prov Quebec, Tuckersmith, s/o Donald McLEAN & Mary BLACK married Grace JARVIS, 38, widow, Scotland, Tuckersmith, d/o John MacGREGOR & Isabella BAIN. Wit: Archibald MacGREGOR and Mary MacKAY, both of Tuckersmith. August 6, 1875 at Kippen
|#003579-75 (Huron Co): Edward Allen McQUAID, 24, clerk, Clinton, Seaforth, s/o Elijah & Zallemar(?) McQUAID married Sarah GRIGG, 24, England, Exeter, d/o William & Catherine GRIGG. Wit: W. J. HEMPHILL of Clinton and Mary GRIGG of Exeter. September 16, 1875 at Exeter
|#003666-75 (Huron Co): Donald McRAE, 30, clergyman, Canada, Parry Sound, s/o John McRAE & Catherine McLENNAN married Matilda THOMSON, 26, Scotland, Blyth, d/o James THOMSON & Matilda HAMILTON. William WATSON of Blyth and Thomas THOMSON of McKILLOP. December 2, 1875 at Blyth.
|#003585-75 (Huron Co): Peter McTAGGART, 30, farmer, Canada, Usborne, s/o James & Nancy McTAGGART married Ann CASE, 22, Canada, Usborne, d/o Thomas & Maria Case. Wit: Thomas E. CASE and Floss McTAGGART, both of Usborne. October 20, 1875 at Exeter
|004375-76 (Huron Co): Lawrence MELVILLE, 26, yeoman, Brooklin, Hullett, s/o Lawrence & Mary MELVILLE married Mary Elizabeth TYREMAN, 22, Clark Twp Ont, Hullett, d/o Andrew & Mary Ann TYREMAN. Wit: John MELVILLE and Adaline TYREMAN, both of Hullett. December 8, 1875 at Hullett
|#003655-75 (Huron Co): William MILLION, 23, farmer, Colborne, same, s/o Patrick & Jennett MILLION married Margaret WATT, 30, Scotland, Colborne, d/o William & Jane WATT. Wit: Robert MILLION and Grace A. WATT, both of Colborne. September 28, 1875 at Colborne
|004388-76 (Huron Co): Jabez John Vanstone MILLSON, 22, farmer, Canada, Usborne, s/o George & Sarah MILLSON married Sarah Margaret BROCK, 24, Canada, Usborne, d/o William & Mary BROCK. Wit: Robert BOSWELL of Hay and Mary PINCOMBE of Usborne. November 17, 1875 at Usborne
|#003553-75 (Huron Co): John MITCHELL, 26, carpenter, Simcoe Co, Turnberry, s/o William & Ellen MITCHELL married Annie Jane JOHNSTON, 24, Ireland, East Wawanosh, d/o William & Mary JOHNSTON. Wit: William MITCHELL and John NETHERLY, both of Turnberry. September 14, 1875 at Wingham
|#003835-75 (Huron Co): George MOONEY, 31, farmer, Ontario, Morris, s/o William & Eliza MOONEY married Mary Ann CRAWFORD, 20, Ontario, Brussels, d/o Samuel & Ann CRAWFORD. Wit: John TAYLOR and Ellen HAMILTON, both of Brussels. November 2, 1875 at Brussels
|4343-76 William J. MURRAY, 24, yeoman, Napanee, Colborne, s/o Calvin MURRAY & Clarissa, married Eliza Jane FRY, 25, Wawanosh, Kinloss, d/o Thomas FRY & Jane, witn: Christopher MATHERS & Eliza Jane HETHERINGTON, both of Kinloss, 13 Dec 1875 at Wawanosh
|#003580-75 (Huron Co): William Charles NICHOLS, 21, blacksmith, Lobo, Teeswater, s/o James & Isabella NICHOLS married Fanny WILSON, 21, McGillivray, same, d/o John & Jane WILSON. Wit: Christopher WILSON of McGillivray and Mary Emma NICHOLS of Teeswater. September 28, 1875 at Exeter
|#003832-75 (Huron Co): John NOTT, 32, widower, veterinary surgeon, Ontario, Brussels, s/o Robert & Mary NOTT married Ellen MUIR, 19, Ontario, Brussels, d/o Andrew & Jane MUIR. Wit: Henry SMALE and Joanna MUIR, both of Brussels. October 28, 1875 at Brussels.
|#003538-75 (Huron Co): George A. PAGE, 24, photographer, Strathroy, Wingham, s/o John & Mary PAGE married Elizabeth VANSTON, 22, England, Wingham, d/o William & Elizabeth VANSTON. Wit: Thompson CLUFF of Wingham and Jane VANSTONE (sic) of Morris. January 8, 1875 at Wingham
|#003575-75 (Huron Co): Aaron W. PANABAKER, 23, carpenter, Waterloo Ontario, Ethel Grey, s/o David PANABAKER and (mother deceased) married Annie Elizabeth PATTON, 21, New Jersey U.S., Ethel Grey, d/o William PATTON & Rebecca KEYS. Wit: John DUNBAR and Kenny WARNER, both of Ethel. October 6, 1875 at Ethel Grey Twp.
|#003563-75 (Huron Co): George PARK, 24, carriage maker, Waterloo Ontario, Goderich, s/o George PARK & Mary CARVER married Ann McKENZIE, 16, Dumfries Ontario, Tuckersmith, d/o William McKENZIE & Elizabeth HALL. Wit: Alex FORSYTH and Kenneth McKENZIE, both of Tuckersmith. July 1, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003719-75 (Huron Co): Thomas PATTERSON, 26, farmer, Dundas, East Wawanosh, s/o James & Mary PATTERSON married Elizabeth Hay REITH (Keith?), 27, Olden Scotland, East Wawanosh, d/o Charles & Elizabeth REITH. Wit: Alexander PARKER and Margaret PARKER, both of East Wawanosh. May 24, 1875 at East Wawanosh
|#003582-75 (Huron Co): Josiah PEDLER, 38, farmer, England, McGillivray, s/o Joshua & Elizabeth PEDLAR married Catherine GILL, 25, England, Hay, d/o John & Harriet GILL. Wit: William SIMBERT (Lambert?) of Usborne and Jonah Henry PEDLER of Stephen. June 26, 1875 at Exeter.
|#003830-75 (Huron Co): Robert W. PETRIE, 28, stationer, Ontario, Village of Ayr, s/o Alexander & Harriet PETRIE married Elizabeth FOSTER, 18, England, Wroxeter, d/o Henry & Elizabeth FOSTER. Wit: Finlay SCOTT and John ARMSTRONG, both of Brussels. September 8, 1875 at Brussels
|#003715-75 (Huron Co): George PLAETZER, 23, framer and carpenter, Blenheim Oxford Co, Auburn, s/o John & Marie PLAETZER married Frederika EGERT, 17, Germany, East Wawanosh, d/o John & Frederika EGERT. Wit: August EGERT of East Wawanosh and Marin GRUSS of Morris. March 2, 1875 at East Wawanosh
|#003584-75 (Huron Co): Richard QUANCE, 23, laborer, Canada, Stephen, s/o William & Sarah QUANCE married Mary BAILEY, 19, Canada, Usborne, d/o Richard & Mary BAILEY. Wit: William QUANCE and Charlotte BAILEY, both of Stephen. August 3, 1875 at Usborne
|#003888-75 (Huron Co): David Mitchell ROGERSON, 25, joiner, Yorkshire England, Blyth, s/o Richard C. & Elizabeth M. ROGERSON married Ellen TREWIN, Usborne, Hullett, d/o William & Mary C. TREWIN. Wit: Thomas TREWIN of Blyth and Isaac ROGERSON of Morris. December 21, 1875 at Hullett.
|#003916-75 (Huron Co): John RYAN, 21, blacksmith, McGillivray, Stephen, s/o Patrick RYAN & Bridget MORGAN married Ann MITCHELL, 22, Pickering twp, Stephen, d/o Owen MITCHELL & Mary MALONEY. Wit: Owen RYAN of McGillivray and Sarah MITCHELL of Stephen. July? 6, 1875 at Stephen.
|#003663-75 (Huron Co): James SCOTT, 41, farmer, Scotland, Morris, s/o James & Jane SCOTT married Emily BUTTON, 22, Canada, Morris, d/o William BUTTON & Mary Ann MATTHEWS. Wit: James SCOTT and Susan BUTTON, res not given. March 3, 1875 at Blyth
|#003667-75 (Huron Co): Frank B. SCOTT, 28, blacksmith, Ontario, Morris, s/o Francis SCOTT & Margaret HABKIRK married Margaret ISBISTER, 25, Orkney Islands, Morris, s/o John ISBISTER & Mary WILLIAM. Wit: Malcolm ISBISTER of Wingham and Ellen SCOTT of Bluevale. August 4, 1875 at Morris.
|#003594-75 (Huron Co): Thomas W. SHOEBOTHAM, 20, blacksmith, London Twp, Lucan, s/o John & Ann SHOEBOTHAM married Alberta PARKER, 16, Canada, Exeter, d/o George & Mary PARKER. Wit: George PARKER and Maud PARKER, both of Exeter. December 25, 1875 at Exeter
|#003573-75 (Huron Co): Thomas SMALLDON, 24, farmer, Devonshire England, Grey, s/o Nathaniel & Dorothy SMALLDON married Ann ALCOCK, 22, Hamilton Ontario, Grey, d/o Richard & Frances ALCOCK. Wit: William CHAPMAN and Sarah ALCOCK, both of Grey. April 16, 1875 at Grey
|#003571-75 (Huron Co): George SMALLDON, 22, farmer, England, Grey, s/o Nathaniel & Dorothy SMALLDON married Hannah SMITH, 18, Canada, Grey, d/o William & Susan SMITH. Wit: Thomas SMALLDON and Mary Jane HALL, both of Grey. March 9, 1875 at Grey.
|#003827-75 (Huron Co): Thomas W. SMITH, 31, carpenter, Ontario, Brussels, s/o Walter & Margaret SMITH married Jessie McCULLUM, 31, Ontario, Brussels, d/o John & Isabella McCULLUM. Wit: Donald SCOTT and Lissie SMITH, both of Brussels. July 26, 1875 at Brussels.
|#003891-75 (Huron Co): Alexander SMITH, 30, farmer, Glasgow Scotland, Hullett, s/o Robert & Agnes SMITH married Janet WATT, 28, Binbrook Canada, Hullett, d/o Alexander & Ann WATT. Wit: James McINTOSH of Tuckersmith and Ellen WATT of Hullett. October 13, 1875 at Hullett.
|#003887-75 (Huron Co): William Henry SNOWDEN, 23, butcher, England, Stratford, s/o William & Hannah SNOWDEN married Jane STEPHENSON, 24, Ontario, Hullett, d/o Raphael & Mary STEPHENSON. Wit: Frederick GALES of Seaforth and Mary Ann STEPHENSON of Hullett. April 13, 1875 at Kinburn Hullett
|#003921-75 (Huron Co): Solomon STAEBLER, 21, cheese manufacturer, East Zorra, Stephen, s/o John & Christine STAEBLER married Lydia GEIGER, 20, Stephen, d/o Edward & Madeline GEIGER. Wit: John & Rebecca Magdalen STAEBLER, both of Stephen. October 19, 1875 at Stephen
|#003602-75 (Huron Co): Robert STANLEY, 24, carpenter, Canada, Stephen, s/o Squire(?) & Mary STANLEY married Wheter ? HUFFMAN, 21, Canada, Stephen, d/o Peter & Johanna HUFFMAN. Wit: Herman MOORE of Usborne and Andrew BOYD of Exeter. February 10, 1875 at Exeter.
|004389-76 (Huron Co): Josiah STEACY, 25, blacksmith, Canada, East Nissouri, s/o George & Elizabeth STEACY married Susannah BOLTON, 23, Canada, Usborne, d/o Samuel & Mary BOLTON. Wit: Henry McLEAN of Tuckersmith and Martha BOLTON of Usborne. December 1, 1875 at Usborne
|#003668-75 (Huron Co): Thomas STEWART, 20, sawyer, Ontario, Bluevale, s/o William Henry STEWART & Jane SHAW married Isabella THYNNE, 20, Ontario, Morris, d/o John THYNNE & Isabella HEPER. Wit: Barbara THYNNE and Richard HALL, both of Morris. October 19, 1875 at Morris
|#003672-75 (Huron Co): Alexander STUART, 30, farmer, Aberdeenshire Scotland, West Wawanosh, s/o Charles STUART & Jane MacINTOSH married Elizabeth RADCLIFF, 21, Whitby Ont, West Wawanosh, d/o Joseph RADCLIFF & Mary HEPBURN. Wit: Hugh McCROSTIE and Mary Ann RADCLIFF, both of West Wawanosh. March 3, 1875 at West Wawanosh.
|#003551-75 (Huron Co): Robert TAYLOR (not ascertained), not given, contractor, not given, Owen Sound, s/o not given married Mary Ann DAVIS, not given, not given, Owen Sound, d/o not given. Wit: Agnes A. MITCHELL and Elizabeth CUNNINGHAM, res not given. June 25, 1875 at Wingham.
|#003890-75 (Huron Co): Archibald TAYLOR, 27, agent, Darlington Ontario, Hullett, s/o Malcolm & Catherine TAYLOR married Mary BELL, 26, Chinguacousy, Hullett, d/o Thomas & Hannah BELL. Wit: Thomas BELL and Edward BELL, both of Hullett. August 11, 1875 at Hullett.
|#003836-75 (Huron Co): John TAYLOR, 24, farmer, Ontario, Brussels, s/o Archibald TAYLOR & Margaret McALPINE married Hellen HAMILTON, 18, Ontario, Brussels, d/o John & Jessie HAMILTON. Wit: Archibald TAYLOR of Morris and Harriet WHITE of Grey. December 15, 1875 at Brussels.
|004399-76 (Huron Co): George THOMPSON, 28, manufacturer, Ontario, Trowbridge, s/o John & Jane THOMPSON married Mary DIMENT, 20, Ontario, Bluevale, d/o John DIMENT & Susannah YEO. Wit: William DIMENT and Thomas JOHNS, both of Bluevale. November 5, 1875 at Bluevale
|#003808-75 (Huron Co): Elliott THYNNE, 30, manufacturer, Berwickshire Scotland, Bluevale Turnberry Twp, s/o John THYNNE & Barbara SCOTT married Ellen B. SCOTT, 25, Tuckersmith, same, d/o Francis SCOTT & Margaret HABKIRK. Wit: R. J. CURRIE of Bluevale and James SCOTT of Seaforth. September 15, 1875 at Tuckersmith
|#003576-75 (Huron Co: David TOMLINSON30, widower, farmer, , Canada, Logan, s/o David & Elizabeth TOMLINSON married Elizabeth PERROTTEngland, Logan, d/o William , 20, & Mary Ann PERROTT. Wit: Frank W. WHITLOCK and George BROOKS, both of Exeter. April 9, 1875 at Exeter.
|#003583-75 (Huron Co): John TROTT, 21, butcher, England, Stephen, s/o Samuel & Jane TROTT married Ann WEBBER, 21, Canada, Stephen, d/o George & Mary WEBBER. Wit: Samuel & Maria HOLMAN of Stephen. August 6, 1875 at Exeter
|#003550-75 (Huron Co): Alexander WATT, 25, labourer, Scotland, Huron Twp, s/o Alexander WATT & Isabella CRUIKSHANK married Jannett McTAGGART, 22, Ontario, Huron Twp, d/o Neil McTAGGART & Catherine McMURDY. Wit: Neil McTAGGART and Bella McTAGGART, both of Huron Twp. November 17, 1875 at Wingham
|#003828-75 (Huron Co): Frank WAUGH, 32, painter, Lowell Massachusetts U.S., same, s/o John & Ellen WAUGH married Jane M. MURTHER, 30, Ontario, Hinchinbrook Quebec, d/o James & Mary MURTHER. Wit: Elizabeth BIDDLE and Louisa BIDDLE, both of Brussels. October 4, 1875 at Brussels
|#003809-75 (Huron Co): Thomas WELLS, 24, farmer, Stanley, Missouri U.S., s/o Thomas & Ann Jane WELLS married Margaret SCOTT, 24, McKillop, same, d/o Robert SCOTT & Agnes DICKSON. Wit: John AITCHESON and John DICKSON, both of McKillop. October 11, 1875 at McKillop
|#003918-75 (Huron Co): John WENINE? 26, butcher, France, Point Edward, s/o John & Elizabeth WENINE? married Catherine FOLLIS, 20, Stephen, same, d/o James & Jane FOLLIS. Wit: Edgar BALL of Sarnia and Mary POLLICK of Stephen. July 22, 1875 at Stephen
|#003541-75 (Huron Co): Robert WHELAN, 42, laborer, Ireland, Bluevale, s/o James WHELAN & Mary YOUNG married Janet HENDERSON, 36, Scotland, Bluevale, d/o James HENDERSON & Agnes KIRKWOOD. Wit: John BEATTIE and James THOMPSON, both of Bluevale. October 22, 1875 at Wingham
|#003823-75 (Huron Co): Samuel WHERRY, 26, farmer, England, Elma, s/o Samuel WHERRY & Ann BLACKFORD married Margaret Jane VOGAN, 20, Canada, Carrick, d/o George VOGAN & Sarah BRYDEN. Wit: Samuel VOGAN Junr of Carrick and Joseph BLACKFORD Junr, of Elma. October 6, 1875 at Wroxeter
|#003924-75 (Huron Co): Henry C. WIDEMAN, 22, farmer, Woodstock Ont, same, s/o Jacob & Mary Ann WIDEMAN married Magdelina WILDFANG, 17, Waterloo Ont, Hay, d/o Daniel & Catherine WILDFAING (sic), Wit: Mary MEYER and Louis MEYER, both of Stephen.
|#003718-75 (Huron Co): William John WIGHTMAN, 23, blacksmith, Hastings Co, Londesborough, s/o Henry WIGHTMAN & Harriet HALL married Sarah Ann HAIRY, 23, Puslinch Twp, East Wawanosh, d/o James HAIRY & Ann Jane OAK. Wit: Ambrose NAYLOR and Isabella WIGHTMAN, both of East Wawanosh. march 24, 1875 at East Wawanosh
|#003825-75 (Huron Co): William WILSON, 21, mechanic, Prov. Quebec, Brussels, s/o William R. & Jennet WILSON married Ellen ARNETT, 19, Ontario, Brussels, d/o William ARNETT & Mary SMITH. Wit: Moses McFADDEN and Mary Jane SHELTON, both of Brussels. No date given, 1875, at Brussels
|#003807-75 (Huron Co): William WRIGHT, 55, farmer, Haddenton Scotland, Turnberry, s/o Francis WRIGHT & Catherine SIMPSON married Mary THRUSSELL, 39, widow, Dumfries Scotland, McKillop, d/o Andrew BEATTIE & Jane BOTHWICK. Wit: John HOGG and Andrew BEATTIE, both of McKillop


text:
Capitol City Challenge Mock Trial Competition
Friday and Saturday, March 18-19, 2011
American University Washington College of Law, 1st Floor Lobby
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
The Competition will provide participants the unique opportunity to compete in front of some of the most accomplished attorneys and judges from the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. The Competition emphasizes the creative use of technology in the courtroom. The 2011 problem is a criminal case charging the defendant with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. All teams will compete in two rounds on Saturday, with semi-final and final rounds on Sunday. A Best Advocate award will be given to the best prosecution and defense advocates in the preliminary rounds and for the high scoring advocate in the final round. The final teams will receive trophies and the winning advocates will have their names and the name of their school permanently engraved on a trophy to remain on display at WCL.
Presented by the Stephen S. Weinstein Trial Advocacy Program and the Washington College of Law Mock Trial Honor Society
For further information, please contact:
Office of Special Events & Continuing Legal Education
American University Washington College of Law
Phone: 202.274.4075; Fax: 202.274.4079; or firstname.lastname@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Shreyasee Datta
Prism of Change - a Study of In Search of the Goddess
It is easy to see that the duality of the sexes, like any duality, gives rise to conflict. And doubtless the winner will assume the status of absolute. But why should man have won from the start? It seems possible that women could have won the victory; or that the outcome of the conflict might never have been decided. How is it that this world has always belonged to the men and that things have begun to change only recently?
(Simone De Beauvoir, 4 – 5)
It is easy to see that the duality of the sexes, like any duality, gives rise to conflict. And doubtless the winner will assume the status of absolute. But why should man have won from the start? It seems possible that women could have won the victory; or that the outcome of the conflict might never have been decided. How is it that this world has always belonged to the men and that things have begun to change only recently?
With the expression 'woman,' the first thought that flashes through is – being 'no-man.' This negative mindset comfortably facilitated the society to adopt a gendered, rather a misogynist, outlook. This sharp asymmetrical binary is felt in all spheres of life. The treatment of women as relatively invisible received a major seismic shift in the western world around mid-nineteenth century. Although deeply entrenched in the impenetrable hegemonic patriarchal social structure, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries did faintly voice the feminist consciousness in the writings of Esther Sowernam, Bathsua Makin and Mary Wollstonecraft. All these writings viewed the position of women in various genres of life through the lens of feminism, to make them regain their lost glory. The existing parochial and unwarranted norms were challenged and deconstructed with an effort to re-conceptualise them. Echoing similar ideological motifs, Indian feminism, with its diversified theoretical and practical approaches, is concerned with empowerment of women and their emancipation from the fetters of patriarchy. Due to a different historical perspective, Indian feminism gained consciousness around the mid-twentieth century along with the nationalist movement for liberation from the colonial hegemony. Indian feminism affected major citadels of society that form the broader super-structure. Such motivation was propagated and continued by contributors from various fields in their respective ways. Politically oriented feminists established organisations like All India Women's Conference (AIWC), National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), National Council of Women in India (NCWI) etc. to gain for women their civic rights. Sociologists publicly demonstrated their protest against the oppressive social system. They aimed to ban persecution of widows, initiate widow remarriage, and forbid child marriage. Women-oriented journals like Manushi were instrumental in documenting gender issues and feminist movement activities. Urvashi Butalia and Ritu Menon established the feminist press, Kali for Women in 1980s, which increased the momentum of the feminist movement by serving as an outlet for books and articles by feminist writers. In the 80s, bookstores exclusively selling books on feminism and women's issues also emerged. Streelekha in Bangalore is one such example. The Indian People's Theatre Association (IPTA) also furthered this movement. It culled avant garde plays for staging, with the motive of economic and social justice. Legislatures framed laws to safeguard a woman's integrity. The feminist movement was also enriched by literary patronage. Unlike traditional authors, who portrayed their women characters as paragons of morality, Mahasweta Devi cast her female protagonists as activists and Ashapurna Devi's domestic women characters were courageous enough to rebel against the dogmatic society. Pratibha Ray of Orissa instilled in her female figures progressive values to forbid them from being crushed under any circumstances. Kamala Das's women were outspoken with unique distinction. These writers made their female figures occupy social as well as emotional space. Among them certain authors revisited the mythologies and re-cast the silently suffering women in them. Myths concretise the concept of inegalitarian society where women are presented as an object of male gaze, a property to possess. Feminist critics like Ritu Menon, Namita Gokhale, Malashri Lal and Kumkum Sangari focussed their concentrated effort to demolish such citadels of patriarchy. This effort further survives in the writings of practitioners as in Bhishma Sahani's Madhavi, Mallika Sarabhai's Sita's Daughters, Shankar Shesh's Komal Gandhar and many more.
To change the established truths of a society, the most effective way of perpetuating is to present the myths with a new cast, suggesting a new and radical vision of the world. As Mallika Sarabhai stated in an article in the Indianewengland magazine, "to go in through the familiar and then turn it on its tail, or put a sting in the tail, is one of the best ways of getting people." Recasting forms an integral theme in Indian feminism in presenting a challenge to the oppression of women and aims to attain equilibrium in the balance of power. Andrienne Rich appropriately elucidated the significance of the theme of recasting for women. In her words, it is a:
[Re]vision, an act of looking back, of seeing with fresh eyes, of entering an
old text from a new critical direction – for us more than a chapter in cultural
history ... an act of survival.
[Re]vision, an act of looking back, of seeing with fresh eyes, of entering an
Mythology has always been the storehouse of models. Every society patronises its models and defines their lives accordingly. Myths are male constructs, so are the female characters in them. The mythical women are presented as a pawn to focus on the heroic activities of men or on their extent of control on our society. These women were made the idols for the Indian women by the patriarchal society to continue their atrocities. But the accomplishment of these darker intentions received a setback with the uprising of the recasting theme. Mythical women figures are deserting their traditional garb with an effort to redress themselves with a newer cultural paradigm of equality. Such recasting often challenges the audience to reconsider marginalised female figures as heroic protagonists. Bhishma Sahani's Madhavi is focussed exclusively on the minor character Madhavi, daughter of the King Yayati of the Mahabharata. In the epic Madhavi's voice is heard for a single time while stating her utility to Galav. Bhisham Sahani carved out a humanised portrait of Madhavi from the puppet, who comes into the foreground, speaks, feels and protests against politics of patriarchy. Retrieving Madhavi's fading image and placing her at the centre forecasts the tempestuous journey of the women from the shaded to the illumined area.
Mallika Sarabhai in her play Sita's Daughters sharply focussed on the humiliations harped on Sita of the Ramayana. Sarabhai made her Sita question every past incidence. Sarabhai's Sita accused her husband Rama of his misdemeanour towards her. The latter half of the play featured the modern women as Sita's daughters who take refuge of the legal actions against male abominable activities. Besides recasting with a contemporary context, Sarabhai does make people heedful about the legal norms formed to safeguard women. Besides being in pen and paper, how far these judicial rules attain validity in the present society becomes itself an enigmatic question. But like a streak of light in this cloudy sky, legal procedures reflect a ray of hope in their long- awaited justice.
Shankar Shesh's Komal Gandhar interrogates the 'ab(use) of woman' by monarchical patriarchy through his protagonist Gandhari. Shesh's Gandhari is not a passive victim; rather she is strong, assertive and articulate. In the play, Gandhari defies the patriarchal interpretation of her blindfold as an act of obedience to her husband's unlighted world. She observed it as a mark of protest, anger and bitterness for negating her right to swayamvara and getting her married to a blind man. In spite of her relentless effort to leave behind the patriarchal discourse, she is always pulled back into it. Towards the end, Gandhari was accused by her husband and son for her acquired blindness and was made to apologise for such an unjust act. Gandhari's position in the play reveals the real status of struggling women in their long way to their accomplished end.
Mahasweta Devi, the activist, re-casts Draupadi in a tribal backdrop of the Naxalbari movement in a short story, Draupadi. To grant a more realistic essence, she modified her to tribal Dopdi. Dopdi was a naxalite, arrested by the army and was subjected to sexual assault by six to seven soldiers. This assault can link itself to Draupadi's undeserving polygamous marriage. When the army chief wanted to question her, she tore up her remaining strips of clothes and defiantly stood upright with her bruised face and heart in face to face with him. The armed commander was thoroughly bewildered. Thus, Dopdi, the recast of Draupadi, challenges the patriarchal establishment with her weapon of femininity (italics mine). Such powerful recasting augments the movement of Indian feminism. This short story puts forward the potential of women in disclaiming the 'natural right' of men to subjugate women. Mallika Sarabhai continued this theme in her play In Search of the Goddess, which is dealt in detail in the following section.
Mallika Sarabhai's recasting of female characters from mythology in a modern day backdrop acquires a new relevance. She retold these famous stories from the women's point of view for a positive reassertion of image of womanhood. Women are always placed by men at the receiver's end. In the introduction to her play, In Search of the Goddess, Sarabhai jogged our memory that every construct around us is a view through a single prism – 'the prism of patriarchy' (Sarabhai, M, 1). She certified it with instances like myths through ages are constructed by men, priests guiding through its interpretations are men, writers of history are men and even today men decide on a woman's social demeanour. And in this 'very male world' (1) women lose their rational identity and live on with the identity ordained by the society. Such strict social structure does not even keep goddesses outside their periphery. One such goddess is Draupadi of the Mahabharata, who was treated so vilely that in certain places her status of being a goddess was diffused. Draupadi in the pan-indian epic Mahabharata was a princess, the queen of the famous five pandavas, the mother of five brave sons, friend of lord Krishna. But the real story is hardly seen through this valorised presentation. She is being upheld as an archetype of sacrifice. Mallika Sarabhai attempts to focus on the real, unbiased, still unattended narration by looking at it from 'a non-male prism of change' (2). This modern Draupadi vents out her long suppressed suffering in Sarabhai's In Search of the Goddess. Among the other women folk, Draupadi was fortunate to have her swayamvara, but in it she was only a ploy – she herself was 'the garland' (2). Her respected father and beloved brother arranged for a tournament. For the winner Draupadi was the prize. Sarabhai's Draupadi complains:
Not mine the decision, whom to Marry
My heart was pledged to a bow and Arrrow
My life an offering to the shooter of The fish. (2)
Not mine the decision, whom to Marry
Thus married to Arjuna, leaving behind all the princely leisure, she made her way into her in-laws house in the forest. Unfortunately, with the inadvertent words of her mother-in-law, Kunti, she became the consort of the five pandavas. Thus, unintentionally she was tied in a polyandrous relationship of marriage. The twentieth century Draupadi questions such a grim situation:
All rights belong to husbands, so says
But to be shared by five, a commodity in the market place? (2)
All rights belong to husbands, so says
Invited by Duryadhana, Yudhisthira went to participate in a game of dice. The Pandavas lost whatever they had, even themselves. Without least concern, Draupadi was placed as a bet in this already lost match. Consequentially, they lost their last hope and Draupadi was dragged by her hair into the assembly of 'lust-blinded men.' Her pleading to all the icons of patriarchy yielded no result. 'Robbed limitlessly' (3) she was rescued by the God. Lord Krishna supplied her cloth. The devoted wife of the famous pandavas had to bear this unfathomable insult. For such an experience her indignation knew no bound, which found expression in the questions of this Draupadi:
Where was the Gita's truth?
Was Arjuna not already in need of
That counsel then? (3)
Where was the Gita's truth?
Draupadi's suffering torturous frustration finds an indirect expression in her question and censure. But her inner emotional suffering acquires prominence with Draupadi saying:
All this I accepted, became the wife of five
To each gave a son
Yet was the only wife of none. (2)
All this I accepted, became the wife of five
Sarabhai presented a humanised portrayal of Draupadi. The epic is completely silent about her mental trauma in marrying five men, living with their co-wives, losing all her sons in the battle. She is only presented as a tool to valorise the heroic deeds of her men and to project the extent of their control on her. In this androcentric world such women are idolised for the perpetuation of their all-but-irremovable hegemony. In their last journey towards the snow-clad Himalayas, Draupadi was the first to fall. For the women who unquestioningly followed her husbands' footsteps, swallowed all indignation, nobody extended a hand, even none turned back. After leading a tumultuous life in the epic, the modern Draupadi realized, 'heaven too must be only for men.' (3) This recasting of Draupadi by Mallika Sarabhai reconstructs the epical image of Draupadi prevalent in the society, thereby empowering the present day women – Draupadis of today – with their voice, legal rights, justice, etc.
Besides delivering a raw deal to Draupadi, mythology manhandled lives of other goddesses also. Some lives are misinterpreted to subjugate common women for ages. A glaring example of such misrepresentation is that of Sati Savitri. Savitri, the daughter of king Asvapati tied her wedding knot with her self-arranged bridegroom, Satyavan, inspite of the warnings of Naradmuni that Satyavan's life would end on the completion of one year of their marriage. With the arrival of Yama on that ill-fated day, Savitri defies him and wins back her husband's life. The patriarchal interpretation goes – Savitri refused to live without her husband, Satyavan. Over the ages this connotation has attacked many widows as its prey. They are compelled to immolate themselves in their husbands' pyre. Even now it is prevalent in interior parts of India. In an effort to put a ban on such appalling situations that run a chill down the spine, Mallika Sarabhai reconsidered Savitri's long-accepted rendering. Sarabhai made her Savitri enunciate the authentic and unprejudiced interpretation and its relevance in the contemporary era. In the text Savitri asserts:
I am a Sati not because I was willing to die. I am a Sati because I took death
on, because I refused to let him win. Because I refused to let Satyavan die.
And I am a sati because I won. (6)
I am a Sati not because I was willing to die. I am a Sati because I took death
An underlying strain of the characteristic of modern women is found in Sarabhai's Savitri. Her tone throughout is not as submissive and accepting, like the one in the Mahabharata. In her dramatic monologues she challenges Yama with arrows of questions. An essence of essentialism is registered in Sarabhai's Savitri, when she says:
I am a woman. I can create. And I can destroy....
By bringing to fore the essentialist image in a representative women-figure, Sarabhai aims to instill this feeling in every women. Each woman should cherish the preciousness of being a woman, which is highly devalued in the present patriarchal society. Once they develop the sense of uniqueness for oneself and for their folk, many atrocities would be at bay. Sarabhai's aim of recasting is to empower the women and to make them able to put up a strong impediment against the application of blind social norms whimsically to chain their feet, under the guise of religion, tradition or mythology.
To emphasize her motif further she refuted the long-accepted traditional story of Brahma's creation and placed instead the Goddess at the centre with her creation. It was a humanised story of creation because unlike Brahma, the Goddess created humans. Sarabhai was never emphasizing on a matriarchal culture, rather she intends to unearth the 'feminist matristic' (Orestein, xvi) tradition. Again, at a second instance regarding Goddess, Sarabhai mentioned that people were creating goddesses to suit their necessity. Thus people could find solace in the Goddess and comes to her for refuge; letting her control all the strings of their life. Sarabhai employed documentary illustrations, like Mena Gurjari of Gujarat and Kannagi of Madurai. Inadvertently people (especially men) have allotted her the centre of their livelihood and underneath they carry out their inflictions on women. Hypocrisy is shouting aloud.
Satya yuga was held as the flawless age, with no sinners. To denounce such patriarchal version of belief, Sarabhai cited an instance from the Satya yuga itself, where a woman ascetic was dishonoured by God Indra. Her Brahmin husband solicited the higher Gods for justice. At Vishnu's instruction, a horse was sacrificed to make Indra sin-free, to appease the Brahmin's ego, but a woman was ruined. All the processes undertaken for justice seemed futile for the woman because that yielded no result for her. It simply played with the woman's belief, her self-dignity, her integrity.
The devoted feminist, Mallika Sarabhai's counsel for the wronged women for ages is to entreat Durga, the female Shakti, the destroyer of all evils, for their earnestly yearned justice. Every woman is the proud possessor of this power of the Shakti; just that she remains unaware of it, or even made to remain so in this male world. The author hinted at this inner dormant power to be nurtured. Women should nurture this power of Shakti within themselves to counter this dominant androcentric surrounding, thereby creating some free-space for themselves.
Deviating from the conventional tracks of stereotyping and generalizing the image of women, feminist movement projected the women with their very own consciousness. The Indian feminists never aimed at a gender-free nation, but certainly intended to eradicate the age-old binaries of superior-inferior, man-woman, etc. Their effort to deconstruct the patriarchal metaphysics recently "has accumulated a vast new mass of testimony, of new comprehensions as to what it is to be female. Inequities, restrictions ... have been documented; damaging differences in circumstances and treatment ... and limitations..., a sense of wrong, voiced." (Tillie Olsen, 23)
Works Cited:
Beauvoir, Simone, The Second Sex, www.scribd.com/doc/4920252.
Bhawalkar, V. Eminent Women in the Mahabharata, Delhi, Sharada Publishing House,
Garda, Ghita, "The Status of Women in World Religions",
Jain, J. & Singh, A. (eds) Indian Feminism, New Delhi, Creative Books, 2001.
Mehta, B. 'Goddess of Many Things', India New England, 15th March 2003.
Olson, Tillie, Silences, London, Virago, 1980.
Orestein, Gloria Feman, The Reflowering of the Goddess, United States of America,
Ray, Pratibha, "The Changing Face of Woman in Indian Literature",
Rich, Andrienne, "When We Dead Awaken – Writing as Re-vision", College English, 34
Sahni, Bhisham, Madhavi, (trans.) Bhalla, Aloke, Calcutta, Seagull Books, 2002.
Sangari, Kumkum & Vaid, Suresh, Recasting Women: Essays in Colonial History, New
Sarabhai, M. & Martin, J., In Search of the Goddess, unpublished / performance script.
Sarabhai, M. & Martin, J., Sita's Daughters, unpublished performance / technical script.
Shesh, Shankar. Komal Gandhar. Delhi: Parag Prakashan, 1985.
Spivak, G.C., In Other World: Essays in Cultural Politics, New York, Methuen, 1987.
Copyright ©2017 Muse India


text:
Nurses Protest Lack Of Ebola Readiness Nurses who say U.S. hospitals aren't ready for an Ebola outbreak protested outside a Las Vegas Strip resort where they are holding a union convention.
Executive Discusses The Effect Of The Affordable Care Act On Jobs In Las VegasDoug Geinzer discusses how an influx of patients will provide a boost to jobs for qualified workers.
Bill Requires National Accreditation For NursesNevada is poised to join 46 states in requiring national accreditation for advanced practice nurses if it adopts SB205.


text:
Article Preview
CROSSTOWN BUSES START ON 65TH ST.; La Guardia Is Cash Passenger on First One Out After Making a Brief Speech.
A new surface route was added to Manhattan's transportation system yesterday when the Comprehensive Omnibus Corporation began operation of the Sixty-fifth Street crosstown line.
February 16, 1935
Thank you for visiting The New York Times archive.
New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view 129 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared. 99¢ for your first 4 weeks.
Or, purchase this article individually for $3.95 and download a high-resolution PDF.
* Does not include NYT Now or Premium Crosswords subscribers.
Already a subscriber? Log in to view this article »


text:
The Interactive Autism Network (IAN), a project collecting information online from families of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) from throughout the United States, reports on the use of occupational therapy. How many families are using occupational therapy, or related sensory-based interventions, like sensory integration (SI) therapy, weighted vests, brushing techniques, or deep pressure, to treat their children? How difficult is it for families to obtain these treatments, and to what extent do families feel they have been helpful?
IAN is a web project of the Kennedy Krieger Institute sponsored by Autism Speaks.
|Please Note: These Findings Are Preliminary
The analyses presented here by the Interactive Autism Network are preliminary. They are based on information submitted over the Internet by parents of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) from the United States who choose to participate. The data have not been peer-reviewed -- that is, undergone evaluation by researchers expert in a particular field -- or been submitted for publication. IAN views participating families as research partners, and shares such preliminary information to thank them and demonstrate the importance of their ongoing involvement.
We encourage autism researchers investigating these topics to apply for access to the IAN database. email@example.com.
Occupational Therapy: How Does it Help Children with ASD?
Occupational therapy (OT) is a health profession that helps individuals with various disabilities achieve functional participation in activities of daily living such as play and self-care.
Occupational therapists working in a pediatric setting are concerned with evaluating and treating a variety of skills that impact a child's ability to function and learn. These include:
Many children with autism receive occupational therapy services to enhance motor skill development as well as to address sensory integration issues. For example, a therapist might assist a child in developing mature grasp patterns so that the child can hold a utensil to feed him- or herself. A therapist might also incorporate sensory integration theory into treatment to assist the child in decreasing sensory-avoiding behaviors (like avoidance of brushing his or her teeth or hair), sensory sensitivities (such as sensitivities to certain fabrics or food textures), and sensory-seeking behaviors (like seeking movement input by constantly spinning, pacing, or rocking). Addressing such issues will help the child self-regulate so that he or she is able to function and learn at school.
Occupational therapy uses purposeful activities to enhance and encourage skill development. Guided by the child's interests, the therapist provides fun and motivating activities that aim to provide a "just-right challenge" so that the child will develop the underlying skills needed to effectively complete meaningful tasks. When skill and strength cannot be developed or improved, occupational therapy offers creative modifications and adaptations for carrying out age-appropriate activities.
In the section that follows, we share the experiences of families participating in IAN with regard to occupational therapy.
Families participating in IAN Research have the opportunity to list all autism treatments they use, and to rate these. In a grouped ranking of treatments -- in which each medication, for example, does not stand alone but is grouped with all others under "Prescription Medications"-- occupational therapy is the third most popular treatment. In addition, interventions directed toward sensory integration, which are often provided by occupational therapists, hold fifth place. Such interventions include, in order of use, SI therapy, weighted blankets or vests, deep-pressure therapy, and brushing techniques. (See Table 1.)
Table 1. Top Treatments and Therapies Used by IAN Families (Group Ranking)
Most of the sensory techniques are directed toward providing additional sensory input that, according to SI theory, will help a child whose senses do not register internal and external sensory information properly. For example, a weighted vest or blanket -- which is a garment or blanket designed to be extra heavy -- is believed to relieve a craving for deep pressure often expressed by people on the autism spectrum, and to help them self-regulate.
There are nearly 2,400 IAN families using occupational therapy. Of these, 64% report using OT alone while 36% report using at least one sensory integration technique as part of OT. In addition, 200 families report using one or more of the sensory integration techniques without mentioning OT at all. Families may think of these therapies and how they overlap in different ways, but one thing is clear. This entire class of interventions is frequently used by families of children on the autism spectrum.
Who first recommends occupational therapy to families? This varies quite a lot, although in about a third of the cases the recommendation is made by a team of professionals, presumably in clinics, schools, or early childhood programs. Interestingly enough, occupational therapists are the first professional to tell a family about OT only 13% of the time. It may be that families do not come in contact with an occupational therapist until after the treatment is recommended by others, most likely those involved in making a diagnosis and setting up an initial treatment program.
Occupational therapy is an intervention mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [i] with the explicit aim of helping children with motor difficulties. (Sensory issues are not specifically mentioned.) It is likely for this reason that many parents say they have encountered few barriers when trying to obtain the therapy. Nevertheless, 21% report they had to quit their job or reduce hours to transport their child to OT, while 18% report they needed to switch schools to obtain the therapy. Those who have used SI therapy report similar experiences. (See Table 2.) This represents a slightly higher burden than that reported by parents for speech and language therapy. (To get speech therapy, 16% placed their child in a different school and 18% quit their job or reduced work hours.)
Table 2. Actions Taken to Obtain Occupational or Sensory Integration Therapy
Funding the Therapy
When families decide to include occupational therapy as part of their child's treatment program, what financial burden do they face? Of those who answered questions about the cost of this therapy, 73% report obtaining it at no cost, while the remaining 27% report paying some portion of the expense. Of those who do pay something, the majority pays either $51 to $100 per month (28%) or $101 to $500 per month (44%).
How do so many families obtain this therapy at no cost? As with speech and language therapy, many receive OT via an early childhood program or a public school. (See Figure 1.)
Figure 1.
As might be expected, 87% of those who report receiving occupational therapy at no cost receive it via a publicly funded program. In addition, 46% of families who pay something for occupational therapy also receive it through a publicly funded program. Because motor and sensory issues are often major challenges for children on the autism spectrum, it may be that parents are seeking out occupational therapy services beyond those that early childhood programs or school systems provide.
Fifty-seven percent of families report that health insurance does not cover any portion of their children's occupational therapy cost. Of the 43% who do receive assistance, 23% have private insurance only; 11% receive Medicaid; and 9% have used both private and Medicaid insurance to pay for OT.
As a child begins this therapy, where do parents hope to see improvement? How optimistic do parents feel? As treatment progresses, are their expectations for their child's progress met?
We examined parent responses regarding both occupational therapy and sensory integration therapy to answer these questions. Our results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. OT and SI: Expectations and Experience
Parents hoped occupational therapy would alleviate a variety of autistic symptoms, including executive function issues, impaired social interaction, and stereotypical behaviors. The targets of sensory integration therapy specifically were somewhat different, with 81% of parents hoping for improvement in maladaptive behaviors (like tantrums). This wide range of targeted symptoms makes sense when you consider the diversity of issues OT and SI together are intended to address.
From the IAN data, it is clear that parents place great hope in these therapies at the outset, with 49% expecting a moderate level of improvement, and 34% expecting a high or very high level of improvement, when starting occupational therapy. When starting sensory integration therapy, these percentages are slightly lower, with 45% expecting a moderate level of improvement, and only 23% expecting a high or very high level of improvement. Why the difference between the two? We do not know for sure, but suspect it may be because sensory integration is sometimes a difficult concept to grasp. It may make less intuitive sense to parents at first than the notion of "occupational therapy" in general.
After a child begins therapy, most parents are pleased with the results. The vast majority (88% in the case of occupational therapy; 89% in the case of sensory integration therapy) reports definite improvement in their child's skills.
Occupational therapy, together with related sensory integration techniques, is clearly in wide use by families of children on the autism spectrum. Its popularity is likely because of its availability in schools and early childhood programs, the fact that it is often publicly funded, the variety of impairing symptoms it targets, and families' high level of satisfaction with the results.
Stay tuned for additional IAN Research findings on a variety of autism treatments.
To Share Your Thoughts About These Findings…
If you have comments and insights about these preliminary findings, please share them in the research-focused IAN Community Discussion Forum under "IAN Research Findings" and then under "Treatments – 2008." (Link: www.IANcommunity.org/cs/discussion) Your feedback may influence future research.
(Any member of the public may view these discussions, but to post, you must join IAN Community. Go to www.iancommunity.org and click "Join IAN.")
The primary goal of the Interactive Autism Network is to accelerate the pace of autism research. Families affected by autism answer questionnaires over the Internet, from the comfort of home. Researchers apply to IAN to use the resulting data, or to find participants for their local studies. The IAN Community (www.iancommunity.org), meanwhile, provides evidence-based basic information on autism spectrum disorders, articles by leading researchers in the field, and reports on IAN's latest findings.
To learn more about the IAN Project, please go to www.ianproject.org.
[1] National Research Council. (2001).Educating children with autism. Committee on Educational Interventions for Children with Autism, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 138-139.


text:
If you'd like a great-tasting bar but need to keep blood sugar and insulin levels low and stable, you want a bar with low net impact carbs. Choose from bars with 1-5 grams of net carbs , 6-9 grams or 10+ grams .
Meal Replacement Bars
Meal replacement bars are perfect when there's no time for a regular meal. They typically contain more than 300 calories, at least 25 grams of protein, at least 30 grams of carbs plus vitamins and minerals. The popular 40:30:30 bars with their precise ratio of protein, carbs and fat could be considered smaller versions of the larger meal replacement bars.
Energy and Snack Bars
Energy and Snack bars are nutritious great-tasting alternatives to snack and convenience foods. These tend to be smaller, great-tasting bars with a higher carb content. They're loosely based upon the theory that for every 90 minutes of exercise you'll need about 40 gram of carbs and 10 grams of protein.


text:
Adornmentsbyestelle's Profile
I reside outside of historical Richmond, Va where I take my inspiration from the historical architecture and nature. I also draw inspiration from mythology, science fiction and modern fashion. These days my primary focus is organic ethnic inspired polymer clay jewelry or hammered copper jewelry.
I was introduced to jewelry making by my grandmother. I would watch her take old or broken pieces and recreate them into one of a kind pieces.
I love making bold jewelry such as wide cuffs, multi colored necklaces and wide banded rings.
I'm a proud member of the Polymer Clay Artists Guild of Etsy! To see more outstanding polymer clay art, search "pcagoe team' on Etsy and check out our website at www.pcagoe.com.
CUSTOM orders are always welcome! If you would like…
- Female
- Joined August 11, 2010
Favorite materials
- Adornmentsbyestelle
- Chesterfield, VA, United States


text:
Please call 503.399.8820 for dates and times.
You may complete your high school education at Chemeketa with a GED certificate earned through the ABE/GED program or a diploma earned through the adult high school diploma program. Students under 18 years old of age have special requirements for enrolling in either program.
The ABE/GED Program assists you in preparing for the GED high school equivalency certificate by offering instruction in the five areas of the GED test: language arts, writing, social studies, science, reading, and mathematics.
Individuals aged 18 and over may enroll in ABE/GED classes after attending an orientation and placement session. For more information about ABE/GED orientation please call 503.981.8820.
SESSION #1: Tues., Sept. 13 & Wed., Sept. 14
Morning session — 9am–12pm
Evening session — 6pm–9pm
SESSION #2: Tues., Sept. 20 & Wed., Sept. 21
Morning session — 9am–12pm
Evening session — 6pm–9pm
Brad Johnson, Instructor, is more than happy to answer any questions via telephone,503.589.7719 .
His assistant, Olivia Nava, is also more than willing to answer any questions. Contact her at 503.589.7717.
Chemeketa ofrece clases de GED en Espanol. Para ver la informacion de los horarios a la seccion de ABE/GED en Espanol. Tambien ofrecemos clases de pre-GED en Espanol, la cual le ayudara a mejorar su espanol. Clases cuesta $70 por trimesta.
Registration and Orientation for GED Testing
Woodburn is an official GED testing center.
Tests are held on the 3rd Friday of each month by appointment.
In order to test, you must first attend a GED test Orientation. You will need to show a state issued picture ID and pay the current fee of $115. At the Test Orientation you will receive information about the testing schedule. If retesting is necessary, a $15 fee is charged for each test.
For more information,
e-mail or call
Or stop by the office at 120 E Lincoln Street.


text:
Charlotte Center City is an asset to companies that are repositioning toward innovation, sustainability, and the 21st Century economy.
Uptown, Charlotte's central business district, is home to a variety of industries and more than 1,200 businesses of all sizes—from tech startups to Fortune 500 companies—and the corporate headquarters for Bank of America and Duke Energy. It is a place where companies grow and succeed. Uptown is the center of commerce, providing access to customers, partners and services located in LEED-certified office towers, tech incubators and co-working spaces.
|Square Miles
|Office Square Feet
|21 Million
|% of County Office Space
|Class A – Office Square Feet
|13.3 Million
|LEED Certified Square Feet
|7.3 Million
|Total Employees
|Total Wages
|4.6 Billion
Source: US Census Bureau. Local Employment Dynamics on the Map (2009) & Quarterly Workforce Indicators (2009). CBRE 3Q 2012 Reports.
For more information about locating your business in Charlotte Center City, please contact Director of Business Recruitment and Retention David McConnell at 704-332-1803 or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
A legal challenge has been mounted against the claims that Lisvane and Llanishen reservoirs are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
Western Power Distribution claims the Countryside Council for Wales' decision is "premature, arbirtrary and unfair".
A High Court judge reserved judgement and his ruling is expected next year.
Lawyers for the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) urged judge Mr Justice Andrew Collins not to quash its decision to protect what is claims is an "internationally important" fungi population on the banks of the reservoirs.
It follows a long campaign against the proposed development, which was first put forward in 2002.
Landowner Western Power Distribution wants to reduce the 60-acre Llanishen reservoir in size, and build luxury homes on its banks.
Western Power has asked the court to quash the SSSI decision and order the CCW to have the matter reconsidered
CCW counsel John Howell QC argued that Western Power's challenges were "misconceived".
Mr Howell claimed the reservoirs were designated an SSI for their "diverse assemblage of grassland fungi including over 25 species of waxcap Hygrocybe", the decline of which has been reported in the grasslands of northern and central europe.
Mr Howell said; "Outside the UK, the best waxcap grasslands are found in Scandinavia, though even there, with a longer history of intensive recording, Denmark and Norway have only one site each with 28 or more Hygrocybe - the number which this site has."
He said the Llanishen site was recorded as having the highest number of waxcap fungi species in the area, the joint fifth highest in Wales and the 10th highest in Great Britain.
He said: "The opinion that the site is special by reason of the diverse assemblage of grasslang fungi, it is know to support, is one CCW was entitled to hold having regard to the specialist advice available to it."
Mr Howell said that if any further information came to light that indicated that the site was not of special interest, then it may be denotified.
He added that the notification was confirmed by the CCW because it was considered to be of specail interest, not because of any threat from development.
He argued that any claim on predisposition on the part of CCW was "misconceived legally and factually".
Most Popular Now | 56,514 people are reading stories on the site right now.";


text:
Sun-kissed skin is increasingly hard to come by now that the sun is going steady with Jupiter. Get skin worth staring directly into with this Groupon.
Choose Between Two Options
- $22 for one heated airbrush-tanning session (a $45 value)
- $63 for three heated airbrush-tanning sessions (a $135 value)
Soleil Beauty Bar
At Soleil Beauty Bar, a team of aestheticians keeps customers comfortably bronzed with custom spray tans. The brushes prep skin with streams of warm air, keeping bodies warm as they're imbued with an even, custom tan that lasts for up to eight days.


text:
Heterodox Records Portland, Oregon
Heterodox Records is a publisher and advocate of electronic music that has it's own color and theme. We look for artists that push the boundaries of their own concepts of art and offer the listener something different. Our goal is to promote, encourage, and display music and art of an abstract and personal nature. ... more
Streaming and Download help


text:
Two brokers braved a slipping sharemarket this week to tap
Shareholders were offered one new stapled security for every five owned. The securities were sold at $1.52 each, just 5 per cent off the stock's $1.60 last close.
DUET came to market when few others would have dared. But CBA and Macquarie, as underwriters, took a punt that investors would buy more defensive exposure amid uncertain times and a global sharemarket rout.
The brokers watched their timing. The deal was set to go on Wednesday but was delayed by a day following Tuesday night's fall on Wall Street.
Most equity capital markets' (ECM) pundits agreed it was smart to watch the carnage unfold rather than ask investors to catch a falling knife.
Macquarie and CBA have close ties to DUET. Market sources call DUET an "owned account" of Macquarie. Macquarie Funds is DUET's joint manager, alongside AMP Capital Investors, while CBA is an important lender in DUET's debt syndicate.
The glossy pitch is that Macquarie was on the mandate because of its expertise in infrastructure and utilities, while CBA was there for its enviable retail reach.
The raising cost $9.6 million or about 3.5 per cent of funds raised.
Rival bankers labelled the fee "healthy". They said similar deals would normally have underwriting costs of 2 per cent to 3 per cent.
Lawyers would also have claimed some of the $9.6 million fee but the bulk would head to the underwriters.
Talk of the seemingly plump fee comes at a time when ECMs' work, and fees, are light on.
DUET didn't shop the deal around but that would not have stopped rivals sending proposals to boss
It was only a matter of time before DUET came to market for funds.
Macquarie and CBA know the business and its management better than other banks. Macquarie was well placed to target investors they know are interested in the stock, particularly offshore, having underwritten DUET's float in 2004.
Recruitment company
Consensus among top ECM bankers is you need a particularly compelling story to raise equity right now and it is even better if that story lies in a defensive sector. DUET ticked both boxes.
DUET's new capital would be used to shore up a highly geared balance sheet, create sustainable distribution and simplify its capital structure. Credit Suisse analysts labelled the raising "a value dilutive but necessary move for DUET".
The biggest ECM deals since the market reached its yearly high in April were dominated by so-called defensives, favoured by investors in times of uncertainty as they can withstand tough market conditions.
Last week UBS handled the $903 million block trade on behalf of Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, while Royal Bank of Scotland did a $300 million institutional placement for APA Group in June.
Fund managers consider DUET, APA and Transurban's earnings to be more closely aligned to inflation (the consumer price index) than economic growth.
Sources close to DUET's deal, and recent deals among the defensives, reported strong demand from long-only Australian fund managers looking for refuge amid uncertain investment conditions.
In DUET's case, the deal was structured as a rights issue so only shareholders on the register could buy shares in the offer. The register is thought to be split 65/35 in favour of institutional investors.
Funds not already in DUET could queue up in the shortfall book-build. The local institutional offer closed at 5pm Thursday, while international institutions had until Friday morning to take up their rights.
The Australian Financial Review


text:
How often do we hear reports of the family pet
mauling a young child? How many pets are surrendered each
year when a new baby arrives? How many pets are given up
because owners find they have little time for the child and
the dog? Dogs and kids canbe the best or the worst match.
What can you do to help ensure the best with your dog and
Children need to learn how
to treat dogs
Safety around Dogs
Children must learn never to go near any dog – even if it is known to the child – without permission from the owner. A dog running loose can act far differently than the same dog on lead with his owner. Dogs roaming lose are a threat to safety. Any loose dog should be reported to an adult. The child should never attempt to catch the dog. Some animal rescue groups even teach classes on safety around dogs. These are great to look into even if you do not have a dog!
If your are expecting a child you need to get your dog ready
What if you have a dog and are expecting a child? Ideally, you should have begun to get your dog set for children long before your pregnancy. Socializing with any situation your dog could encounter at any time should start from day one.
While you are pregnant get your dog ready for new changes
When you find out you are pregnant, you should begin getting your dog set for the new changes in the house. Granted, the concept of dog training while going through morning sickness is not top on the list of most expectant parents; however, it should be. If you know you will have to change the dog's schedule for eating, walks, etc., start to do so long before the baby arrives. This way, the dog will not be hit with several big changes at once. Begin working on brushing up on basic commands – especially STAY and OFF. There is nothing worse than having a dog jump on you when your balance is off due to a growing belly or when holding a child. I also teach dogs to sit at the top of stairs and then go down ahead of me. I do not want them charging behind me and knocking me and/or the child over. Should you have complications with pregnancy and be confined to bed, do the best you can. Your spouse, family members, friends, etc., can all be of assistance – or even hire a dog trainer to help you out if need be.
Get Scruffy used to the various sounds and smells (if possible) of a child long before yours arrives. Tape record the myriad of sounds a child makes and play them at different volumes in all rooms of the house. If you have a friend with a toddler, ask if you can use the opportunity to get your dog accustomed to the various odors and motions of a child. (Though this socializing to children should have been done when you first got your pet. However, if you suspect your dog may act aggressively, consult with a behaviorist beforehand; this will be discussed further later on). However, if you can borrow clothes, etc., for short periods, do so. Babies not only sound different, but they can really smell neat!
Anything you want your dog to do after the baby arrives, start teaching beforehand
If possible, set up the nursery a month or so
before the baby is due. This will give your dog time to
adjust to the new room. The rule in our house is if no adult
is present, no pets in the room. (In other words, when the
child is napping, all critters are out). Baby gates will be
your best friends here. If your dog jumps over the gates,
consider installing a screen door so you can see and hear
the child easily but the pets cannot get into the nursery. I
just closed the door and used monitors so I could hear if my
child woke. Get your dog used to doing a down/stay in the
room. I allowed my dogs in while I nursed or
When the Big Day arrives remember your dog
Many new parents get concerned when the BIG DAY
arrives. Well in advance, decide who will be responsible of
caring for your dogs while the baby is being born. We had a
friend lined up in case I went into labor and it would be so
long as the dogs could not wait for my husband to return
home. We also decided that he would not spend the first
night in the hospital with us. Instead, after our child was
born and we were all set, my husband would go home and tend
to the dogs. Our back up was our vet who would board the
dogs if need be. Luckily, my labor was five hours total. I
left for the hospital at 3pm
When the Baby comes home
In this day and age of "drive-thru" deliveries where the mother will be lucky to spend a night in the hospital (two nights if you have a great insurance plan), the old idea of bringing home a blanket the baby was wrapped in so the dogs can spend a few days getting used to the scent is difficult. My husband still did this – however, our dogs ignored the blanket. They were more interested in looking for me and then getting reassurance that all was OK. However, there are things you can do to help the transition when baby comes home.
The day you are to go home, make sure the dogs
get a real solid run beforehand. The dogs should be really
worn out. This will help temper an over enthusiastic
greeting. I also kept a couple treats they normally do not
get ("moo tubes") packed away. When we got home, the first
thing I did was go inside and take the dogs out back while
my husband and mother brought the baby into the nursery. I
played about five minutes off fetch and then brought the
dogs in and gave them their treats. I went upstairs to the
nursery. As each dog finished, he came to find me. I sat on
the floor and had each dog do a
Give your dog some of your time
I like to make it a point to allow the dogs access to all aspect of raising the child. They could be with me while I nursed as long as they were quietly on a down/stay. They could watch diapers being changed as long as they were calm and quiet. Same for when we were all just hanging out on the bed napping. When my son napped, I would spend alone time with the dogs before I napped. Making sure the dogs get one-on-one time without the baby is very important. You want to keep that bond with your dogs but also enforce that child will be higher on the pack rank than the dog. Baby is not a bad thing but a welcome addition and there will still be time for the dog. However, safety is always first and no matter how well trained and socialized your dog is, never leave him unattended with an infant or child.
Teach Baby 'Gentle Hands'
As the baby grows, use the opportunity to teach the child "Gentle Hands." I started showing my son how to gently touch the dogs and not to grab as soon as I could. Waiting until the child is a toddler to try to start teaching Gentle Hands can be too late. Babies start to grab and poke and even hit at a young age. They need the same gentle love and guidance as you used when getting your dog set for the new arrival. I found it is far easier to teach a child what you expect from the beginning than it is to change the rules midstream! At two, my son helps me feed the dogs, aids in bathing (his is Soap Man!) and is learning how to gently brush them. He is very different from a former neighbor's toddler who would grab their dog so hard that the dog would snap. No one taught either dog or child proper behavior. This was a serious accident waiting to happen. Already, they had gotten rid of one dog as opposed to training the dog and their children.
With work and luck, your dog and child will grow to be a wonderful team, but not all parents are so lucky. Should you notice your dog acting dominant, snapping at or even biting the child and the child has done nothing to provoke it, seek professional help. Even if the child did provoke it, the dog must learn that biting is not acceptable and to walk away. Should there be ANY question in your mind at all about your dog's response to your child, seek professional help immediately. If your dog is known to be aggressive before you have children, seek help long before you have a child. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Make certain you do all you can long before pregnancy to prepare your dog for children - is far easier than fixing a problem allowed to go on too long.
Even if you do not have children of your own, your dog must be accepting of them. Insist that all children around your dog know the rules and follow them. I have banned children from visiting my dogs since they repeatedly refused to follow the rules. Children will be children and forget, but rules must be followed or they will not have the privilege of visiting my dogs. Safety for child and dog is always first priority! Dogs and kids can be the best or the worst matches. Timmy and Lassie are not reality. However, there is no reason why your dog and you child cannot coexists happily if you are a responsible dog owner and parent. The worst thing for a dog is to be banished or ignored when a child is born. Many dogs will die in shelters when a new baby arrives. With planning and forethought on the part of dog owners, this need not happen.
Unfortunately dog related advice cannot be provided
personally. Please refer any Dog related questions to our Dog