The John Rutherford Tract Project

[Teegate]

Rutherford Tract Project


All,

My project for this fall is to search out and hopefully find the stones along the John Rutherford tract which I will described in a future post from a portion of the deed. I have found many of the stones already over the years and I will incorporate them in this thread when I believe it is appropriate. The area in question is basically between Lacey Road in the Bamber area to almost 539 along the Chamberlain.

Since it is still summer I am starting easy by finding some state monuments along the northern edge of the Chamberlain put there in 1959 by surveyors for the State of NJ. These monuments are crutial in helping me with this project. I was taking it easy today because Jessica earlier this week had surgery in her mouth to remove a blocked salivary gland on the inside of her lip. She was not able to walk in the woods for fear of hitting it so we stayed close to roads along the Chamberlain.



Seven stitches which have annoyed her all week. Many of them came out today on our explorations as she worked on removing them constantly.

This monument we found right along the road on the north side of the Chamberlain. It is not far from the Lawrence Line where we will be beginning our project so the finding of this monument is assurance I am properly calculating.

Just off the road.

More assurance not far away that I am doing this properly. Where we will be looking in the future will not be as easy. Old info and the every confusing magnetic north.

Arrow points to my walking stick by the monument.

After an expensive day yesterday having my car fixed, I backed down a road today and damaged my side mirror on a tree. A project to replace next weekend.


Guy

 

[manumuskin]

I have ripped off two mirrors backing down tight roads.Once a small tree got it and another time a very nasty tangle of catbriar.Both times my driver side mirror while I was watching the other one.
Looks like neither one of could wait for fall to begin hunting stones

 

[Teegate]

Thirteenth day of March eighteen hundred and sixty.

????? do certify that Edward Brinley a Depuity Surveyor of the Eastern Division of the State of New Jersey duly deputed and sworn did complete the following survey for John Rutherford commenced by Francis W. Brinley the late Surveyor General in November 1858 ...... All that tract of ?????priated land situate between the North Branch of Forked River and the main or Chamberlains Branch of Cedar Creek, and between Lacy's Road and the Quintipartite line (Lawrence Line) of division between East and West New Jersey, part in the township of Union and part in the township of Dover in the county of Ocean, and Eastern Division of the State of New Jersey.

 

[bobpbx]

Thirteenth day of March eighteen hundred and sixty.

????? do certify that Edward Brinley a Depuity Surveyor of the Eastern Division of the State of New Jersey duly deputed and sworn did complete the following survey for John Rutherford commenced by Francis W. Brinley the late Surveyor General in November 1858 ...... All that tract of ?????priated land situate between the North Branch of Forked River and the main or Chamberlains Branch of Cedar Creek, and between Lacy's Road and the Quintipartite line (Lawrence Line) of division between East and West New Jersey, part in the township of Union and part in the township of Dover in the county of Ocean, and Eastern Division of the State of New Jersey.

Nice! Very interesting.

I've always felt that the Webb's Mill Branch is the main Branch of Cedar Creek upstream of Bamber. I think I'm right, technically.

 

[Oriental]

Thirteenth day of March eighteen hundred and sixty.

????? do certify that Edward Brinley a Depuity Surveyor of the Eastern Division of the State of New Jersey duly deputed and sworn did complete the following survey for John Rutherford commenced by Francis W. Brinley the late Surveyor General in November 1858 ...... All that tract of ?????priated land situate between the North Branch of Forked River and the main or Chamberlains Branch of Cedar Creek, and between Lacy's Road and the Quintipartite line (Lawrence Line) of division between East and West New Jersey, part in the township of Union and part in the township of Dover in the county of Ocean, and Eastern Division of the State of New Jersey.

My copy of the Rutherford Tract survey begins:

I have completed the following survey for John Rutherfurd, commenced by Francis W. Brinley the late surveyor general in November 1858 viz. All that tract of unappropriated land, situate . . .

and ends:

. . . Surveyed in November 1858 by Francis W. Brinley. Excepting the northerly lines from Lacy's road to the Quintipartite line which was run in November 1859. Dated 4th day of January 1860. Edward Brinley Deputy Surveyor

It seems that Francis' son Edward had to finish the survey after the passing of his father.

 

[Oriental]

Guy,

I looks like you will have your hands full with this project! Almost 15000 acres before the dozens of exceptions. Looking forward to hearing about your progress. Good Luck.

 

[Oriental]

Nice! Very interesting.

I've always felt that the Webb's Mill Branch is the main Branch of Cedar Creek upstream of Bamber. I think I'm right, technically.

It's hard to say from the map. Both these streams and others form the headwaters of the main branch of Cedar Creek. Do you believe that Webb's Mill Branch is a more substantial stream than Chamberlain? I wonder if deeds to property along Webb's Mill Branch call it the main branch of Cedar Creek too. Interesting.

 

[Teegate]

You have Edward Brinley's survey and I have the "return." This was written by the Surveyor General in March 1860 and only describes the outer edge of the property. The exceptions are listed but the descriptions of the property lines are not mentioned.

 

[Oriental]

You have Edward Brinley's survey and I have the "return." This was written by the Surveyor General in March 1860 and only describes the outer edge of the property. The exceptions are listed but the descriptions of the property lines are not mentioned.

Indeed, the Edward Brinley survey is just as you described. The problem is that in many places the so called "outer boundary" is not exactly as you would think because the exceptions are often not completely within this line. In many cases these exceptions straddle the line sort of eating into the property from the edges. This is especially true along the southern border of the property near the Forked River.

 

[Teegate]

Indeed, the Edward Brinley survey is just as you described. The problem is that in many places the so called "outer boundary" is not exactly as you would think because the exceptions are often not completely within this line. In many cases these exceptions straddle the line sort of eating into the property from the edges. This is especially true along the southern border of the property near the Forked River.

The survey I have begins at a point and ends back at the same point, so it follows the outer edges of the property. This would mean it follows the outer edges of the exceptions also. Unfortunately, in some of the corners a stone is not mentioned which makes it obviously hard to know the exact spot.

 

[Oriental]

The survey I have begins at a point and ends back at the same point, so it follows the outer edges of the property. This would mean it follows the outer edges of the exceptions also. Unfortunately, in some of the corners a stone is not mentioned which makes it obviously hard to know the exact spot.

I am having difficulty saying what I mean to say. Should have paid more attention in English class.

I think what you will find when you look into it is that the metes and bounds that describe this property (28 courses) encompasses more than 14800 acres. The 30 plus exceptions to the tract drop the actual survey to just over 12000 acres. Some of these exceptions are completely within the described bounds of the 14800 acre tract. However, some of the exceptions are partly within the described boundary and partly outside said boundary. This fact should not hinder you from finding the corners to the Rutherfurd Tract as described in the survey. I was just pointing out that the land that Rutherfurd actually took title to does not completely follow this outer boundary. Some tracts take a bite out of that line which encloses the 14800 acres.

Don't know if that made any more sense. I tried.

 

[bobpbx]

It's hard to say from the map. Both these streams and others form the headwaters of the main branch of Cedar Creek. Do you believe that Webb's Mill Branch is a more substantial stream than Chamberlain? I wonder if deeds to property along Webb's Mill Branch call it the main branch of Cedar Creek too. Interesting.

I do think Webb's Branch is a more substantial stream, but my reasoning may be flawed. Despite both streams being sourced west of route 539 (at about the same longitude) Webb's Branch always has a strong flow west of 539, whereas the Chamberlin completely stops flowing West of 539 in many years.

 

[Teegate]

I am having difficulty saying what I mean to say. Should have paid more attention in English class.

I think what you will find when you look into it is that the metes and bounds that describe this property (28 courses) encompasses more than 14800 acres. The 30 plus exceptions to the tract drop the actual survey to just over 12000 acres. Some of these exceptions are completely within the described bounds of the 14800 acre tract. However, some of the exceptions are partly within the described boundary and partly outside said boundary. This fact should not hinder you from finding the corners to the Rutherfurd Tract as described in the survey. I was just pointing out that the land that Rutherfurd actually took title to does not completely follow this outer boundary. Some tracts take a bite out of that line which encloses the 14800 acres.

Don't know if that made any more sense. I tried.

That is correct. I will be following the 28 courses.

 

[Teegate]

Jessica has a cold so I spent Saturday morning searching for multiple stones along the southern edge of the Chamberlain. One of them I have searched for multiple times. Looking over my information I noticed that it mentions this which I slightly edited:

To a stone lettered "GS" fifty links south (33 feet) nine and a half degrees east from a cedar stake marked on four sides placed in Lawrence Line by Thomas Gordon and Francis W. Brinley when they ran the line from the shore to Prospertown in the year 1839, and as the said line was run by Thomas Debow in 1815 which stone (GS) is at the southerly edge of the cedar swamp on the main branch of Cedar Creek sometimes called Chamberlain branch near it's head."


This tells me it is along the Lawrence line 33 feet from where I have been looking but unfortunately that is the route I have taken to get there many times. In any event, I returned yesterday and crawled on my hands and knees looking under the vegetation. It just isn't there and more than likely has not been there for many years. I have information from the late 1950s that does not show it and it was not found in the late 90s by the Lawrence Line Commission. So for now I am passing on looking for this again until sometime in the future when I may acquire something new.


Then I moved on to another GS stone that I also looked for before. It is in the Cherry Valley branch which is clear and almost void of water right now. A perfect time to look.


Thence down the southerly side of the swamp on said branch to a stone lettered GS in Cherry Valley branch near its mouth or entrance into the main branch aforesaid."

My calculations put me at the exact location where you can actually see the "mouth" forming and I was standing right in the stream with a few inches of water in it. I could see 50 feet in all directions and there is nothing there. Granted, it could be a small stone which I doubt, but in any event I searched for 30 minutes poking everywhere and walking much further than I really needed to go. Again, I will pass on this one until something new may come up.


From there I struggled to push my way through the vegetation to a few other locations. They are just so dense I really was wasting my time. I really need to wait for another month to revisit these places. I did see this along the way.

 

[Teegate]

All,

For those that are interested here is an explanation of the very beginnings of the John Rutherford survey. I will show you each of the very beginning locations and edit the information I post to protect anything that I feel should not be posted here.

Lets begin. The beginning corner to the survey is at the location shown below. How do we know that? The survey gives us various descriptions including this one.


Beginning at a stake planted where Wrights Road to Forked River turns out of the road from Webbs old Mill to Aserdaten about 17 chains and twenty eight links (1140.48 feet) from the Southerly end of the causeway where the latter road crosses the main or Chamberlain Branch of Cedar Creek (Black's Bridge).

http://maps.njpinebarrens.com/#lat=39.86955362331661&lng=-74.34104282062532&z=18&type=hybrid&gpx=

Basically, it is 1140.48 feet from the southern edge of the cedars to the beginning stake which is shown above. You may also wonder why Wrights Road is not "turning" out from the road to Aserdaten at that location and I only can say that Wright's Road was altered between 1860 and the 1931 aerials. At one time it must have went straight. Other info in the survey collaborates this starting location.



Course 1.


South seventy one degrees fifteen minutes East 135 chains 50 links (8943 feet) , mostly along Wrights Road.


Notice in this aerial you can see that Wrights Road turns into a survey line and you can see that the location of the corner is still a survey line today. Notice the white under the red and notice the next course runs along the edge of the sand plant.

Course 2 and Course 3

North 40 degrees 17 minutes East 144 chains 16 links. (9514.56 feet)

Notice that Course 2 does not quite make it to Lacey Road. The survey then says.

North 27 degrees 30 minutes East 2 chains (132 feet) to the middle of Lacey Road.

This gets us right to the center of Lacey Road. You can actually see another survey on the opposite side coming into Course 2 above. We are at the correct location.

Course 4 and Course 5

We now travel 20,113.5 feet down Lacey Road to Course 4 and then to Course 5. There is information I have which shows the property ending earlier on Lacey Road but it is incorrect.


South 62 degrees 30 minutes East down along said road (Lacey) 304 chains 75 links (20,113.5 feet) to a point in the road 25 links south of a large red sandstone planted for the North Easterly corner of 409 acres.


Course 5 is very close to the Parkway Tolls.


South 30 minutes East 27 chains 60 links. (1821.6 feet)

Course 6



This course shows that I am correct in all that I have posted. From the location at Course 5 above the edited survey says:


Along line South 80 degrees 15 minutes West 218 chain (14,388 feet) to several pitch pine knots and stakes with a heap of stones built around them.


Last May bobpbx were in that area and I had noticed survey lines at that exact spot. You can see the orange arrows pointing to them below and the circled distance. Always on the lookout for stones we visited that location and found a monument. It is exactly 14, 388 feet from the location I have Course 5 at by the Parkway tolls.

Monument at the exact location of Course 6 of the Rutherford Tract.

Guy

 

[manumuskin]

You know I"m interested! I"ll start getting weekends off again around late November I think.I"ll let you know when.Let me know if you need another set of eyes.I"ve only got one working properly now but it's working good.

 

[bobpbx]

Very cool Guy, very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Teegate]

I was out today and have cleared a 12 foot area to look for a monument. Others have looked before so I am really hoping to find something.

 

[Teegate]

Everything I tried to do this weekend was either blocked by huge puddles or overly wet cedar swamps. So I looked on the north side of the Chamberlain for a stone I looked for years ago and could not find. I don't know about it's history except that it most likely dates to before 1860 and was last found as far as I can tell in 1959 during the Greenwood Forest survey..


I poked into this and heard the stone.

Seeing the light of day for the first time in almost 60 years.

Next weekend a 1.5 mile walk each way for two Rutherford stones.

 

[bobpbx]

Excellent Guy. Do you leave it uncovered?

By the way, got ticklets (tick nymphs) twice today, but destroyed them all. How about you?