[15]. Note.—These children are given by Miss Wilson of Elgin, Ill., and must have died before the will was made.

[16]. Note.—An admirable compilation of these Ohio De Camp families has been made by James M. De Camp, of Cincinnati, Ohio, entitled “Record of the Descendants of Ezekiel and Mary Baker De Camp, of Butler County, Ohio,” which was printed and published by the Western Methodist Book Concern, Cincinnati, O., in 1896 (pages 177), and to which reference is directed. As a record has been made of these De Camps of Butler Co., the compiler of the within work has not incorporated this branch of the general De Camp family into the present compilation.

[17]. Note.—It may be that this Gideon6 De Camp was not a son of Morris5 De Camp (John4, Henry3, Laurence2, John1). He could not be identical with Gideon4 (Henry3, Laurence2, John1), baptized 1721, May 21, or with Gideon4 (Gideon3, Laurence2, John1) baptized 1727, Oct. 15. He is clearly a grandson of Henry3 (Laurence2, John1), but the fact that he was a physician in good circumstances owning several valuable tracts of land at Elizabeth, Westfield, and Rahway, is indicative that he might not be identical with the Gideon6 (Morris5, John4, Henry3, Laurence2, John1) mentioned in Sheriff’s Deed, Isaac Ward, Sheriff, to Moses Jacques, dated 11 Jan. 1804, recorded Newark Registry in Book H. of Deeds, page 522, as one against whose land a judgment writ of fi. fa. was issued and under which the land was seized and sold.

[18]. Note.—The above De Camp line was furnished by James A. De Camp of 95 Reade street, N. Y. city, who states that perhaps Elihu De Camp was a son of Lemuel De Camp. This, however, the lineal descendants of Lemuel De Camp deny, and no mention is made of such a son in the will of Hannah De Camp, widow of said Lemuel De Camp. Mr. De Camp further states that Elihu De Camp had another daughter Mary, but if so she is not mentioned in either her father’s or mother’s will. It therefore remains to trace out the father of Elihu De Camp.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

  1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling.
  2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
  3. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.