Family Tree Maker's Genealogy Site: Genealogy Report: Descendants of James Deir

[ Home Page | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page ]

Descendants of James Deir

Generation No. 2

2. JOHN² DEIR (JAMES¹) was born Abt. 1806 in Ireland, and died Abt. 1876 in Leeds County, ON. He married (1) CATHERINE LLOYD Abt. 1832. She was born Abt. 1813 in Ireland, and died October 1870 in Lansdowne, Ont. He married (2) CATHERINE BURKE January 7, 1876 in St John's R.C. Church, Gananoque, ON, daughter of LAWRENCE BURKE and JULIA BARRY. She was born Abt. 1830 in Cappawhite, Co. Tipperary.

Notes for JOHN DEIR:
(This file was too large so half is under John Deir and half under Catherine Lloyd)

Draft: March 2001
      THE DEIR FAMILY

      What is Known of Their History in The Old Country

      Recollections from the early, pre-emigration years of the Deir family appear to have faded from memory. Little has been handed down to the present generations about their times, where they lived, who their families were, or what they were like. Much of the following story has been reconstructed from small bits of surviving family memories and what is contained in various sources: land records, census returns, church registers, and other miscellaneous documents. The stories that have survived often tease, and are frequently contradictory. As with any reconstruction, a certain amount of judgement has to come into play. I have tried to base my interpretations on fact. Where there is little factual evidence I have tried to support my assessment with circumstantial evidence.

      What is common to these following stories is that John Deir was Irish, a Commoner, a Catholic, and a hostler (horse groom); and that Catherine Lloyd was the daughter of a Lord, or Landed Gentry, Church of England by religion, and she eloped with John Deir. Because of the differences in their religions and social class they had to emigrate to Canada to avoid repercussions. The stories can be divided into two versions:

Story One - The Irish Version:

      The following quotation best summarizes this version. It is taken from Leeds the Lovely by Evelyn Purvis Earle. She begins by relating what her grandmother told her.

            "Tom Deir's mother was a lord's daughter," she would say. "She ran away from Ireland with the hostler. I remember her living in a log house here when we were young."

            I asked Mrs. Deir's granddaughter, Catherine Fodey, who had been a Deir, "Is it true that your grandmother eloped from Ireland?"

            "Oh yes," she said, standing very straight, her hair still quite black despite her eighty years. "She had a step-mother she didn't like. They wanted her to marry someone else, but she didn't like him, either. So she said she'd marry the first man who asked her, to get away from it all. My grandfather Deir, one of the hostlers, heard of it and said to himself, `Maybe I could make a love match with her.' And, being young and handsome, he did."

            It was another member of the family who told me the rest of the story. "It was Lord Lloyd's daughter who ran away with the hostler," she said. "After they were married they came back and told her parents what they had done. Her father had a high opinion of the young hostler, so he treated them very kindly. `You cannot,' he told them, `remain in Ireland because of the difference in faith and rank, but I will help you to emigrate to Canada.' So he gave them a generous sum of money and went down to Dublin to see them off. He never saw his daughter again."

      In support of this version are the census returns, all of which state that Catherine was either born in Ireland or was Irish, depending on the question asked on the return. Also, Philip Deir [4th generation, grandson of James Deir and Elizabeth Doyle] wrote some notes on the Deir family, much of which was passed on to him by his grandmother Elizabeth Doyle Deir, and it states in one section that "Great Grandfather John Deir married Catherine Loyd (sic) at Wexford Ireland. Both came from the same place...left Ireland immediately..."

      Patrick Lewis Deir [3rd generation, Edward Deir and Anne Leeder Family] apparently went to Ireland after WW I to the Lloyd estate to see if there was ever an inheritance for Catherine upon her father's death. He was told that too much time had passed and the inheritance had reverted to the estate. An exact, or even a general location in Ireland is not known.

Story Two - The Welsh Version:

      For this version I shall rely again on Evelyn Purvis Earle, but this time from her book Linger in Leeds.

            "Vincent (Ted) Deir is the direct descendant of an eloping couple. Catherine Lloyd, his great-great-grandmother, had a step-mother she disliked who was trying to marry her off to a man she did not fancy. "I'll marry the first man who asks me, rather than put up with this," she was heard to declare. John Deir, a handsome Irish hostler employed on this Welsh estate, heard of her declaration of independence, and decided to make her fall in love with him. This he did, and they ran away and were married. When they came home and confronted the girl's father, Lord Lloyd, with the news of the marriage, he said, "You cannot stay in this country because of the difference in rank and faith. I will give you the means to emigrate to Canada." He liked the young man so much that he was not as harsh as the fathers of most eloping daughters."

      Unfortunately, Ted [4th generation, grandson of Edward Deir and Anne Leeder] died before my research began. He was actually a great-grandson of John and Catherine. A few years before his death in 1987 he took a trip to Mostyn in Flintshire, Wales. The details have been lost as to why Ted thought Mostyn Hall was Catherine's ancestral home. Someone who did talk to Ted before his death was Brian Deir [5th generation, Thomas Deir and Sarah Jane McDonald Family], of Kingston, Ontario.

      Brian filled in some more of this story. It appears that many Irishmen in those days went to Liverpool in search of work. Somehow John managed to find work across the bay in Wales at Catherine's father's estate. He was told that John and Catherine were married at a nearby town called Prestatyn.

      Philip Deir's notes once again enter the picture. In another section of his notes he wrote cryptically "Deir from Ireland and Wales." It is unfortunate that Philip did not rework his notes into a more cohesive story.

A Second Ending, Yet Another Twist:

      Jerome Deir [4th generation, James Deir and Elizabeth Doyle Family], of Brockville, Ontario told a variation of John and Catherine's departure for Canada. In this version it appears that Catherine's father was none too pleased with what had occurred. He states that just after the ship had left the dock for Canada her father arrived with a posse of Orangemen who were planning to lynch John.

      No one seems to know the true story any more. It could be one, or the other, or some combination of both. Only further research will help to unravel the mystery.
      IRELAND AT THE TIME

      THEIR ARRIVAL IN CANADA

      After their elopement in 1831 or 1832 they came to Canada, joining a wave of emigration that saw Upper Canada grow from about 40,000 in 1815 to about 300,000 by 1833. John would have been about 26, and Catherine about 19. It isn't known if John's brothers, James and Patrick (see Section III for more about them), accompanied them on this trip, or joined them at a later date,or, perhaps, preceded them. Voyages in those days were by sailing ships, and lasted from 6 to 8 weeks in good weather. It isn't known what type of passage they could afford, steerage or cabin. The monied classes travelled by cabin; the poorer classes were consigned to steerage: they slept and lived in the holds of the ship, with all the unsanitary conditions that implies, and, they had to supply their own food. The ships had a lot of similarity to today's cattle cars.

      It is likely that they had to endure the quarantine at Grosse Isle. It was instituted shortly after June 7th of 1832 when the ship Carrick, out of Dublin, landed immigrants with cholera at Quebec City, and the next day at Montreal. By September 3800 had died in Quebec City, and 4000 in Montreal. The disease even spread as far as Kingston. At Grosse Isle the immigrants had to leave the ship and wash all their bedding and clothes. Anyone showing signs of sickness was taken to "hospital" sheds to die, or live. Over the years untold thousands of Irish Immigrants took their last breath on this island. Cabin passengers could send their bedding and such ashore with their servants. For a first hand account from the point of view of a member of the landed gentry see Roughing it in the Bush by Susannah Moodie. She was at Grosse Isle in August of 1832. Her book was published in 1852.

      After leaving Grosse Isle they would have sailed to Montreal, the final destination of the ship. From there they had to travel overland by stage or wagon as far as Prescott. At that time there was no canal to allow ships passage up the Lachine Rapids. One story has it that John and Catherine stopped at a land office in Cornwall and selected a piece of land to purchase. It was in the what was to become the Front of Leeds and Lansdowne Township - the south west quarter of lot 21, concession 5. That whole area was called Johnstown when they arrived. Johnstown contained, roughly, what is now the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville.

      With Cornwall behind them they proceeded as far as Prescott. There they could board a ship and escape the bone rattling overland ride. Regularly scheduled ships left Prescott and stopped at towns and landings along the way to York (Toronto). Due to the flood of immigrants arriving in the country, and its stratrgic location at the west end of the Lachine rapids, Prescott had grown from a population of 50 in 1815 to about 1400 by 1832. Over a dozen steamers and almost 50 schooners worked out of the port. Their trip was short though, Mallorytown Landing was only about 20 miles away. The only major stop would have been at Brockville. The story continues, they were met at Mallorytown Landing by someone who took them cross country to see the property. For lack of any other evidence, it was probably John Neil, the property owner.

      The date of the purchase of the property, unfortunately, cannot fix the date of their arrival in this area. John Neil was granted the E˝ of lot 21 in 1824 under the name John Armstrong as a military emigrant. Some problems seem to have arisen because it wasn't until 1853 that the title to the land was regranted to John Neil, "alias Armstrong". On the 14th of December of that year John Deir received clear title to the property for Ł55. The homestead was finally theirs. The 1842 census shows that he held the land by "bonde". It wasn't until 1868, though, that he registered the deed with the land registry office - 36 years after his arrival!

      The earliest date that can be found for John and Catherine's presence in the area is an 1839 census in the Front of Leeds and Lansdowne Township (it does not give a lot and concession number, though). There was a census in 1833 but his name does not appear on it. This gives some credence to another story that they first lived just across the township line in Escott Township on lot 9, concession 4. It is only about a mile away. If they did live there they must have rented as there is no record of them ever having owned it.

      Another piece of evidence is the statement on the 1842 census that they had been in the country for ten years (i.e. 1832). A third piece of evidence, though more circumstantial, is an affidavit, dated 1846 "in the District of Johnstown" with John Deir's mark attesting to the fact that a Joseph Moxley, on lot 23, concession 5 had resided there for 10 years and made many improvements to the land. This places him in the area, if not on his property, by 1836. Lastly, all of the children were born in Upper Canada (by the census returns). James, the eldest, was born the 6th of February, 1833 (see page 11).

      In summary, we can be sure that they were in the Canadas by 1832, in Upper Canada by 1833, in the Front of Lansdowne Township and on or near concession 5 by 1836, on lot 21, concession 5 by 1842, with 8 acres cleared of trees and under cultivation.

      THE CHALLENGE

      It is hard for us, with our modern conveniences, to appreciate the effort required to be a settler in the wild country of the 1830's: the trackless bush, the years of backbreaking work to clear a few acres of land, the urgency of building a shelter to protect themselves from the mosquitoes, the blackflies, the heat, the cold, the rain, the snow; and the challenge of raising a family under those conditions. Doctors were scarce to non-existent. There were few stores, and most of what they needed they had to make themselves, or do without. Wood stoves were only becoming commonly available about this time and it wasn't until the 1850's that most families had them. The only source of heat, for cooking and warmth, was a fireplace. The chimneys were built on the outside of the houses to minimize the danger of fires. Fireproof materials were scarse and early chimneys were built of wood and clay.

      The commerce that did take place was mainly by barter. Roads that did exist were mud holes in the spring and fall, and buried under snow in the winter. Settlers, though, used these winter roads to their advantage. They only had to take their grain harvest to the mills once a year, and this was best accomplished by sleigh over the relatively smooth snowy roads. The nearest churches were in Kingston, Brockville, and Perth. Church services elsewhere were held by visiting priests occasionally, in small groups, in the settler's cabins or barns.

      And then there was the politics. An Orange Lodge, #26, had opened in Lansdowne, possibly as early as 1830. Closer, at Dulcemaine, another Lodge, #100, was warranted in 1845 by one of their neighbours, Joseph Taylor. Ogle Gowan, the father of organized Orangism in Canada (he established Lodge #1 in Brockville in 1830), and also a resident of the area, was upsetting the established political order of the Loyalists. His tactics included an open appeal to bigotry against Catholics and the old order; neither did he hesitate to use thugs to intimidate voters at the polling stations who did not see things his way. Irish politics had emigrated with them.

      THE HOMESTEAD

The Land:

      The piece of land they chose to settle, the SWĽ of lot 21, concession 5, Front of Lansdowne Township, was probably all bush in 1832. There is no indication that John Neil ever lived on this property; he had other properties in the area. At best, there were concession roads slashed through the forest. The choice of property was a good one, though. The front (south) half of the property, approximately 25 acres, has a sandy loam soil - better than most of the land in the district which is a clay loam. It is level and appears to drain well. Near the south end, close to the road, are a few flat rock "islands". There are also a few of these islands at the centre of the property. This is where John and Catherine built the homestead.

      Immediately to the north there is a rocky ridge which then slopes down to what is now pasture. On the ridge they built their barn. It appears that this is also where their small apple orchard was located. Wild apple trees now grow here. The remaining acreage to the north is a mixture of rocky, wooded hills, low ground suitable for hay and pasture, and some land suitable for crops. It was quite suitable for the small scale grain farming that was current in the 1830's.

The Buildings:

      Originally they would have put together a shanty: a crude log house designed solely to keep the bugs and weather at bay, and to give them time to build a more permanent structure. The homestead was a one storey log house of unknown dimensions (the foundation was bulldozed only a few years ago, but before anyone could measure it). Judging the pile of rock that was bulldozed from the hole (it still sits on the rock island beside where the cabin used to be) there was cold storage under the cabin. Nothing else is known of its appearance, although it appears to have been used until about December of 1876. One of the reasons for living in the cabin to so late a date is that taxes were not levied on them, but only on brick, frame and stone houses. Son Edward purchased the south 60 acres of the E˝ of lot 21 from Henry Rudd in 1876. That property had a frame house on it.

      To the north and west stood the barn. It would have been about 60 to 100 feet from the cabin (see map). The remains of the foundation rocks can still be seen easily in an "L" pattern in the grass. The barn itself appears to have been built in two sections: the larger was about 60 x 27 feet, and the smaller about 45 x 27 feet. It isn't clear exactly what the barn looked like but there are still many old barns around the country that resemble it. The barn would have been one storey with a simple pitched roof, like a house, and covered with wooden shingles. The walls would have been planked, as the many old existing barns are still. There is also a good likelihood that there existed, at least originally, a log barn. There are still a few of them surviving around the country side. There were undoubtedly other smaller out buildings over the years but traces of them are gone.

      About 100 feet to the south and west are the remains of a curious building. The foundation, all that now exists, sits on one of the flat rock islands. It was meticulously constructed of dressed stone and mortared together. This stone work is by far the most elaborate and professional on the property. The stone work is 10 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 5 feet high. After some research it appears the likely use of this building was as a smoke house. There is an almost identical building at Upper Canada Village. Above the stone foundation there was a further wooden structure in which the meat was hung to smoke. Considering the expense that would have gone into its construction it seems that John Deir, or perhaps one or more of his sons, was smoking other people's meat as well as his own - a small side business.

More About JOHN DEIR:
Emigration: Abt. 1832
Occupation: Farmer

Notes for CATHERINE LLOYD:
(This is the second half of the story started in the notes on John Deir)

      THE CHILDREN

      John and Catherine had 6 surviving known children. They were, in order of birth: James, Edward, Elizabeth (Eliza), Thomas, Mary, and Sarah. There was also a son, probably born about 1837, who appears to have been alive in 1848 but he disappears from the record after that. Between 1842 and 1844 there seems to an extra daughter; and the 1848 census return states that two males died in the year preceding the census. Given the birth dates established for the surviving children it is hard to know where to place them: perhaps one in 1844 and one in 1846, or perhaps twins in 1845. It is unlikely that records will surface to clarify this mystery, but it now appears that they had ten children in all.

Determining the birth dates:

      Unfortunately, none of the baptismal records for any of John and Catherine's children have been found. The records of all the early Catholic churches in the area have been searched thoroughly. The results were disappointing. Even the local Church of England records were searched, with the same result. Therefore, the dates for the surviving children have been derived from other sources. The Ontario Vital Records are the main source; as well cemetery transcriptions and the 1901 census (which gives the date of birth but which must be handled with care as many dates seem to be in error). Obituaries of the time (1904 - 1925) were skimpy in detail, if they were published at all.

      James, the eldest son, was 71 years of age when he died in 1904 according to his registration of death. The informant was his son Jerome. James' headstone agrees with this date. That would mean he was born in 1833. The 1901 census gives his birth date as 6 February, 1835! Although the day itself is probably correct (it is not known who gave the information to the enumerator) the year is wrong - his brother Edward has a very strong claim to that year. From the available evidence it seems that 6 February, 1833 is the most likely date for his birth.

      Edward, the second son, was born on 5 October, 1835 according to his registration of death; his age is given as 76 years, 3 months, and 9 days. The informant was his daughter Harriet. His headstone agrees with this date, as does the 1901 census, except that whomever the informant was he or she gave the enumerator 5 December as the birth day.

      Elizabeth, or Eliza, the eldest daughter, is a problem as far as fixing a birth date goes. Her death registration gives her birth date as 21 June, 1841. No informant is listed. Her headstone gives only her death date. Her record of interment at St. Mary's Cemetery gives an age the same as her death registration but at St. Mary's Cathedral her death entry gives her age as 62, or a birth year of 1848. The 1901 census is less than helpful - it gives her birth date as 15 March, 1856! Two other censuses, both after her marriage, give an age of 38 (1853!) for the 1891 census, and 29 (1852!) for the 1881 census. Prior to her moving to Kingston, though, her age was given as 31 (1840) in the 1871 census, and 22 next birthday (1840) on the 1861 census. As near as can be determined from the earlier censuses there was a female child born prior to the 1839 census. The next one was born between the 1841 and 1842 censuses. The time of year these censuses were taken is unknown, but if they follow the pattern of the later ones they were taken in the spring. My feeling is that the more correct date would be the 1838/39 one, given her tendency to give later dates for herself. The census returns for 1861 and 1871 both show Eliza two years older than her brother Thomas.

      Thomas, the fourth surviving child, is a little easier to place in context. His registration of death lists his birth date as 5 May, 1841. The informant was his son William. There is no stone for him or his wife. The censuses from 1861 to 1891 place his birth year in the 1841/42 area. The 1901 census gives 5 May as his birth day, but 1843 as his birth year. In the 1861 census he is shown as 2 years older than his sister Mary.

      Mary, the fifth surviving child, has the birth date 2 March, 1843 on her death registration; her age is listed at 77 years, 6 months, 22 days. The informant was her son, John Doyle. Her name is not on the stone with her husband John. Her birth date on the 1901 census confirms the date on her death registration. Perhaps her husband checked with her before entering the information: he was the enumerator for that area in 1901.

      Sarah, the last known child, is another one whose birth date is difficult to fix. I have no death registration for her and her stone only gives a death date, as does the record of interment at St. Mary's Cemetery. Census dates are the main source available. The earlier censuses, 1861 and 1871, yield a birth year of 1848 which agrees with an entry in the 1848 census that there was a female child born in the year preceding the census. Her whereabouts in 1881 could not be determined. The 1891 census, however, yields a birth year of 1851; the 1901 census gives her birth date as 29 April, 1850. Her obituary, short as it is, says she was 76 years of age which yields a date of 1849/50. Another determining factor is the age difference between her and her sister Mary: in 1861 there is a four year difference (therefore a birth year of 1847); in 1871 there is a 5 year difference (therefore 1848). Accepting the 1847/48 date eliminates a serious problem. If we accept a date later than 1848 we have to add another unknown female child (the one born prior to the 1848 census) to the family. My own judgement is that she was actually the female child born before the 1848 census.

      This leaves us with four, perhaps five if we accept Sarah's later birth date, children of which we know little except their approximate birth and death dates. The oldest was a son, born prior to the 1839 census. The most likely time would have been about 1837. He remains on the censuses right to 1848. Unfortunately, the Front of Leeds and Lansdowne Township return for the 1851 census disappeared sometime in the past; it was the first census to list all members of the family, by name, and give their ages. We can only conclude that he lived beyond 1848 but died sometime before the 1861 census, or he left at a young age, never to return, and his existence has been completely forgotten.

      The next is a daughter, born between the 1841 and 1842 censuses. By the 1845 census there is still only two daughters, despite the fact that Mary was born in 1843. One can only conclude that the unknown daughter died before the 1845 census, or that Mary was born 1841/42 which is unlikely considering the evidence we have for her birth in 1843.

      Then there is the question of the two male children who died in the year preceding the 1848 census. Neither is mentioned in the 1845 census suggesting that they were born after it was taken, only to die sometime in 1847. Whether they were born separately or were twins is unknown.



      CATHERINE LLOYD

      Little has survived about Catherine and John as people: what they thought about the issues of the time, how they acted, or even what they looked like (no pictures seem to have survived). Any conclusions we can make about them have to be deduced from what we know of their activities. For instance, we know from the elopement story that Catherine was strong willed, determined, and willing to bear the disapproval of her family and peers to achieve what she wanted, or to avoid what she did not want. She would have been about 19 at the time. If the story of her coming from a gentrified family is true, it must have been a tremendous shock to come of age in the bush of Upper Canada. It is not known how much, if any, education she received. It appears the boys never bothered to learn how to write but two daughters, Eliza and Mary, could write fluently.

      Catherine, we now know, had 10 children between 1833 and 1848. They were most likely delivered by midwives, as doctors were scarce, especially in the early years. Although most pioneering wives went through this process it must have been a trying time when combined with all the other demands settlers had to deal with.

      One task that she seems to have taken to was spinning and weaving. The farm produced a good supply of wool (see the farm census on page 9). In 1842 Catherine wove 16 yards of flannel; in 1848 that total was up to 28 yards of flannel and 9 yards of fulled cloth as well; in 1861 there was 19 yards of flannel and 12 yards of fulled cloth. By then she was probably slowing down, but she had 3 daughters by this time to assist her.

      Her elopement strategy appears to have been adopted by daughter Mary in 1864, and Catherine seems to have taken it well. Mary, too, would have been about 19 or 20. According to one of Mary's descendants she and John Doyle went to Montreal and were married. As near as can be determined Mary and her new husband lived at the Deir homestead until 1871 when they moved into their own place in Yonge Township. By then they had four children.

      Not much more is known about her until shortly before she died. In 1869, when she and John sold their property to son Edward for support in their retirement years, the document names Catherine not just as Catherine Deir but as Catherine Loyd (sic) Deir. This appears to be rather unusual in the documents of the day (I have not noticed it on any other document of the many I have looked at). It appears to show she had a strong sense of pride in her parental family, and did not want it forgotten.

      Just before her death we have another part of her story from Evelyn Purvis Earle in "Leeds the Lovely":

            "Before her death, the Lord's daughter became a convert to her husbands faith. The priest who attended her said that it had seldom been his privilege to meet a woman of such cultivation and charm."

      I have not been able to find her profession of faith and baptism in the local church records, or her death record for that matter. She apparently died in October of 1870 from some type of heart trouble. It is curious that the only record of her death is in the 1871 census (Schedule #2, The Nominal Return of the Dead) and in it her religion is still listed as Church of England. Her age was given as 58, which agrees with the other dates known for her. The probable explanation is that she converted in order to ensure that she would be buried with the rest of her family in the Old St. Francis Cemetery in Brockville. Before her death she would have known 7 of her 43 grandchildren.

      JOHN DEIR

      From the elopement story we can see that John was the adventurous type, in his youth at any rate, who was quite prepared to take a risk: by incurring the wrath of the Lloyd family, and by incurring the wrath of Irish vigilantes of both Catholic and Orange persuasion who frowned on this type of thing. It must have been very obvious to him during this elopement period that they could never live safely in Ireland. Their only real choice would be to emigrate. At that time the British Isles were flooded with stories and news articles about the opportunities in the Canadas.

      Again, little is known of the intervening years, except for two affidavits the John attached his mark to: one in 1846, with a Robert Patterson, that vouched for a Joseph Moxley's residence on lot 23, concession 5 for ten years; and one in 1847, with William Moulton, that lot 20 in the 6th concession had been occupied for the past three years. One conclusion that can be made is that his neighbours, mostly Protestant, considered him trustworthy and credible, as did the local magistrate Thomas Vanston, at Escott.

      It isn't until 1868 that John's story continues. In that year he finally got around to registering the deed he received from John Neil in 1853. The following year, 1869, he sold the lot to his son Edward for support for the remainder of his and Catherine's natural life. On the 9th of February, 1870 John purchased the E˝ of lot 10 in the 6th concession from the Canada Company for Ł103.2.6. He had been leasing it from them since October of 1861. Then, on the 22nd of March he sold it to his youngest son Thomas for one dollar. It seems likely that Tom, who married Sarah Jane McDonald in November of 1866, was already living on it. He was for sure in 1871.

      Assistance to son James cannot be proven but it only seems likely that John and Catherine, if they helped two, would help the third son. There are two possible points at which they could have helped him get started: (a) on his first property purchase in 1859 for part of lot 18, concession 4, Escott Township (only about 3 miles from home). He bought it for Ł100. This would turn out to be a very fateful move for him; (b) his purchase of parts of lots 23 and 24, Broken Front in Yonge Township in February of 1871 (a few months after the death of his mother). Neither purchase required a mortgage.

      The last activity at the homestead we can trace to John is an entry in April of 1874. It is a curious one and I am not sure what to make of it. He gave up his estate and interest in the E˝ of the SWĽ of lot 21 for $1., firing and fence rails.

      In January of 1876 it appears that John remarried, to a Catherine Hunt. The marriage was recorded at St. John's R.C. Church in Gananoque. The best man, Bartholemew Hyde, was an old neighbour of John's before he moved to Gananoque. It seems, circumstantially, that he died shortly after. The 1881 census shows Catherine still with the name Hunt. Several events occured about this time to indicate change was in the air. Edward, in December of 1876 bought the property next door from Henry Rudd (the SE 60 acres of lot 21) and the following month sold his property on lot14, concession 6. Mary and her husband, John Doyle, moved to Simcoe County in the winter of 1877. Eliza moved to Kingston and was married in 1878. There is good evidence that she was there in 1877.

      It appears that John and Catherine had planned well to get their children started in life. They certainly prospered, and multiplied. John lived to see at least 19 grand children of the 43 that were born.

More About CATHERINE LLOYD:
Burial: 1870, Old Cath. Cem., St Francis Xavier, Brockville, ON
Cause of Death: heart disease

More About JOHN DEIR and CATHERINE LLOYD:
Marriage: Abt. 1832

More About JOHN DEIR and CATHERINE BURKE:
Marriage: January 7, 1876, St John's R.C. Church, Gananoque, ON

Children of JOHN DEIR and CATHERINE LLOYD are:

4.	i.	JAMES³ DEIR, b. Abt. February 6, 1833; d. March 5, 1904.
5.	ii.	EDWARD DEIR, b. Abt. October 5, 1835, Lansdowne, Ont; d. January 14, 1911, Lansdowne, Ont.
	iii.	SON DEIR, b. Abt. 1837, Lansdowne, Ont; d. Unknown.
6.	iv.	ELIZABETH DEIR, b. Abt. June 21, 1839, Lansdowne, Ont; d. October 26, 1910, Kingston, Ont.
7.	v.	THOMAS DEIR, b. May 5, 1841, Lansdowne, Ont; d. November 10, 1918, Gananoque, Ontario.
	vi.	DAUGHTER DEIR, b. Abt. 1842, Lansdowne, Ont; d. Abt. 1844, Lansdowne, Ont.
8.	vii.	MARY DEIR, b. March 2, 1843, Lansdowne, Ont; d. September 24, 1920, Matchedash Twp., ON.
	viii.	SON DEIR, b. Abt. 1845, Lansdowne, Ont; d. Abt. 1847, Lansdowne, Ont.
	ix.	SON DEIR, b. Abt. 1845, Lansdowne, Ont; d. Abt. 1847, Lansdowne, Ont.
	x.	SARAH DEIR, b. Abt. April 29, 1847, Lansdowne, Ont; d. November 5, 1925, Kingston, Ont; m. THOMAS MCGUIRE, May 7, 1888, Kingston, ON; b. May 21, 1840; d. February 7, 1932, Gananoque, Ontario.

Notes for SARAH DEIR:
No Children

More About THOMAS MCGUIRE and SARAH DEIR:
Marriage: May 7, 1888, Kingston, ON

[ Home Page | First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page ]