Landmeter-generaal-kaart, B355/1833, Augustus 1833

"The Loan Farm Vrolykheid with the annexed Government ground containing 6890 Morgens, Surveyed for Jacobus Johannes OosthuisenM As. son, Field Cornetcy of Traka." Bounded N Government Ground, S Zwarte Berg, E Oorlog's Kloof, W Wilga Mount. Internal names already shown: Wit Plaats, Uitkyk Hek, Frans Kraal, Marinco, Lot B. "As. son" locked in as "ALMERO'S SON": the survey applicant is probably Jacobus Johannes OosthuizenL (c.1785-1867, PER-000208), son of Ockert Almero (1755) - see PER-000043 for the full reasoning and the [TO VERIFY] that still guards it.

[17 Aug 2026] THE ALMERO READING IS OFF. It needed the grantee's grandfather to be an Almero and he was not - see PER-000118. What the sheet says is unchanged and is all we have: "Surveyed for Jacobus Johannes OosthuizenL As. son".

THREE THINGS AROUND IT ARE CERTAIN AND ARE WHERE THE NEXT ANSWER WILL COME FROM. (1) [WITHDRAWN 17 Aug 2026 - IT WAS FALSE, AND THIS MODEL ALREADY HELD THE COUNTER-EXAMPLE.] The claim was that Stretch used SENIOR rather than patronymics and that Vrolykheid is the only sheet carrying one. OORLOGS KLOOF No. 172 - the farm immediately EAST of this one, diagram 356/1833, the very next number, surveyed the same month by the same man - reads "Surveyed for Lucas Van Veuren 'P. Zoon.'" DOC-0073 has recorded that since 29 July and LEAD-0054 calls it a patronymic convention in those words. Two rows of this model, contradicting each other, for nineteen days - the same failure as PER-000043 against PER-000208. (2) THE NEXT FARM WEST WAS SURVEYED THE SAME MONTH FOR AN OOSTHUIZEN: Middelwater, diagram 349/1833, "Surveyed for OKERT OOSTHUIZEN", titled Bf.W.Q.5-7 on the same 15 April 1841 as Vrolykheid's Bf.W.Q.5-13. (3) THE GROUND BETWEEN THEM WAS OOSTHUIZEN GROUND TOO. De Claar Stroom, the loan farm that ran from Middelwater to Vrolykheid, was PETRUS OOSTHUIZEN's, and SRC-010 says he ran the founding of the village with HIS BROTHER OCKERT. Three adjoining farms, three Oosthuizen households, in one survey season.

Verouderd: hieronder beantwoord LEAD-0213.

[17 Aug 2026, THE SHEET ITSELF READ AT FULL RESOLUTION - and it is not what this project has been arguing about]. WHAT WE HOLD IS A 1963 TYPED COPY, not Stretch's manuscript: the stamp reads 'Copied from diagram relating to Title Deed No Bf.W.Q.5-1? dated 15.4.1841', signed for the Surveyor-General 8.6.1963, sheet BL-4C. EVERY WORD ON IT IS TYPEWRITTEN. So 'As.' is a 1963 typist's reading of an 1833 hand, and no amount of argument here can outrank the original.

THE SHEET NAMES THE MAN TWICE, DIFFERENTLY, AND ONLY ONE VERSION WAS EVER RECORDED HERE. The body paragraph reads: 'The Diagram represents The Loan Farm Vrolykheid with the annexed Government ground containing 6890 Morgens Surveyed for JACOBUS OOSTHUIZEN situated in the Field Cornetcy of Traka. - C. van der Westhuizen.' No Johannes, NO PATRONYMIC AT ALL. The signature block then reads 'Surveyed for Jacobus Johannes OosthuizenL As. son by (Sgd.) C. Lennox Stretch, Land Surveyor, August 1833.' One sheet, two forms of the name. 'C. van der Westhuizen' is a name this project has never recorded for this farm - presumably the field cornet of Traka.

Verouderd: hieronder beantwoord THE DEED NUMBER'S LAST GLYPH CANNOT BE READ from this scan and is NOT recorded as read: the stamp's own frame line runs straight through it. It is one of 3, 8 or B. That is not pedantry - Bf.W.Q.5-18 is the deed four later diagrams cite as 'in favour of N. HITGE', so the glyph decides whether an Oosthuizen title on this farm ever existed. Per 5a it stays [illegible]. LEAD-0213.

[17 Aug 2026] WHAT THE NEIGHBOURING SHEET GIVES US IS THE FORM. Stretch's patronymic is INITIAL(S) + ZOON: 'Lucas Van Veuren P. Zoon' - Lucas, Petrus's son. The Vrolykheid typist rendered the same construction as 'As. son'. So 'As.' occupies the slot where 'P.' sits on the neighbour, and it is TWO characters where that one is one. Under the ordinary Dutch contraction - keep the first letter and the last - a two-character 'As.' is a name beginning A and ending s: ANDRIES or ANDREAS. ALMERO WOULD CONTRACT TO 'Ao.', NOT 'As.'. That is an argument about handwriting conventions on a 1960s typescript, not a reading of the manuscript, and it is recorded as such. LEAD-0213.