Re: John Renner and Mary Wine
-
In reply to:
John Renner and Mary Wine
Carol Engle 3/08/05
I have seen where an ENGLE web-sites stated positively that Daniel was not Mary Wine’s son, but is from a previous wife of John Renner.
I disagree with this hypothesis: The Frederick County Maryland Orphan record clearly states that “All children minors except those shown as married; petition filed Aug 1803.”This means that in Aug 1803 Daniel Renner was a minor and Mary (Renner) Young was not.A minor according to Maryland in the late 1700s was designated as under 21 years of age.Therefore; in Aug 1803 Daniel must have been born after Aug 1782.With the Engle web-site acknowledging a Mary Wine marriage to John Renner on 7 Dec 1782, either Daniel Renner is Mary’s son or John Renner married Mary Wine within 3 months of his previous wife’s death.Though possible, I would think it might be very unlikely and definitely not something you could state as fact.
I had Daniel Renner's birth year from other deceased relatives as 1785, though not proven.It should NOT be stated that Daniel was not Mary Wine’s son, but that he likely was her son and it should be stated that Mary (Renner) Young, Elizabeth (Betsy) and Catherine were not Mary Wine’s biological daughters (as they were born before Aug 1782 according to the Orphan Records statement below).
RENNER, John d/ interstate - (Pg 88-91)
widow Mary, now w/o Peter ENGLE (who is also guardian of last 8 children)
Children -
..Mary, w/o George YOUNG
..Catharine, w/o Michael KESSELRING
..Betsy, w/o John SONNAFRANK
..Daniel
..John
..Solomon
..Jacob
..Samuel
..George
..Sally
..Susanna
All children minors except those shown as married; petition filed Aug 1803.
Land - Resurvey on Joseph's Friendship (219ac), The Fifth Dividend (145ac), all contiguous; Dower laid out on part of The Fifth Dividend (conveyed by Philimon & Joshua GRIFFITH); Michael & Catharine KESSELRING purchased the estate.
Commissioners: Normand BRUCE, Thomas JONES, Middleton SMITH, Bernard GILBERT, John RAMSBERG, dtd February 1805.
I take it from the demeaning remarks made about Daniel by the author of a Peter Engle web-site, that it was trying to put Daniel in a bad light for bring a law suit against Peter Engle, but the courts agreed with Daniel as he won that suit.Also Frederick county records show that Peter also paid the other Renner siblings their fair due from the John Renner estate, but the web-site failed to mention this was done after Daniel won his case.So it was not a frivolous, sour grapes action upon Daniel's part.I would not like to have controversy with my half-cousins over this event, but embrace them in our common search of our Wine ancestry.