Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 5

· on record 1955 · show on the map

The farm's own history, the grant, the original survey, sits on that page.

Farm number: No. 112
Portion: 5
District: Prince Albert
Extent, as the diagram states it: 922.0071 morgen
Modern surveyed area: 781.8 ha

The historic extent and the modern surveyed area are two separate measurements and are not presented here as confirming each other. The first is what a surveyor wrote on a diagram, usually in morgen. The second is what the modern cadastre draws.

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. 24 km from Klaarstroom.

parcel Cut out of Minnies Kraal No. 112
border Shares a boundary with Klipfontein A No. 174 Klipfontein A No. 174
border Shares a boundary with Minnies Kraal No. 112 Minnies Kraal No. 112
document A document in the collection describes this ground DOC-0216

Before this ground was cut out

This is the history of Minnies Kraal No. 112, the farm this ground was cut from, on a date the record does not give. It is shown here because this ground was that farm, and separately from what follows because before the cut the record says the farm's name and not which part of it. Not everything below necessarily happened on this piece.

1955 boundary subdivision: becomes Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 2
1955 boundary subdivision: becomes Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 3
1955/1956 boundary subdivision: becomes Askop (Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 1)
1955/1956 boundary subdivision: becomes Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 6
1955/1956 boundary subdivision: becomes Nuwejaarsfontein (Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 7)
1955/1956 boundary subdivision: becomes Klein Minnieskraal (Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 8)
1955-08/1955-09 document SG diagram 8731/1955 K.G.T. 2300/1956
1955 document SG diagram verso 8731/1955 (verso)
undated boundary subdivision: becomes Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 4
undated boundary subdivision: becomes Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 5

What the record holds, in order

August 1955–September 1955 document SG diagram 8736/55
T/A 2305/1956
undated boundary change subdivision: from Minnies Kraal No. 112

Bordered by, as the diagram names them

NW Annex Koppies Kraal
N Restant van Minnies Kraal
W Restant van die plaas KOPJES KRAAL
NE Gedeelte 6
E Gedeelte 4
SW Restant van die plaas KLIPFONTEIN A
S Gedeelte 1 van die plaas KLIPFONTEIN A

Also bordered by, as the modern cadastre draws it

Ground that touches this farm on the Surveyor-General's current polygons and that none of the diagrams held here names. Derived from the geometry, not read off a document.

Documents

catalogued, no scan held

Surveyor-General diagram, 8736/55, August 1955–September 1955

Cadastre

Surveyor-General diagram index for this parcel

Surveyor-General diagram index for the whole farm, where the original survey of this ground sits.

Research notes

[3 Aug 2026, SRC-252] SG Dgm 8736/55, "Gedeelte 5 van die plaas MINNIES KRAAL Nr 112, PRINCE ALBERT", 922.0071 morgen (about 790 ha). Surveyed August-September 1955 by S.J. Maarschalk, Landmeter; approved by the Landmeter-Generaal 16 January 1956. Coordinates on Stelsel Lo 23. The parent diagram is No. 8731/1955, attached to T/A 1956-2300 - the same 1955 survey campaign that produced SRC-206, the sheet that settled this farm's number as 112. Leer No. 5/169/23; M.S. No. E.2090/55. Endorsed 112/5; this sheet attached to T/A No. 2305/1956. Its neighbour list is the useful part: KOPJES KRAAL and its ANNEX on one side, KLIPFONTEIN A on the other. Both are farms this project already holds - Kopjes Kraal No. 123 is documented from 1859 to 1934, and Klipfontein A is PAR-000083 - so Minnies Kraal is now placed by its neighbours rather than by a name alone. NO POLYGON: the downloaded cadastre holds the parent farm only, and this project does not pin a portion it cannot match.

[4 Aug 2026] plc_id was blank, so match_cadastre.py skipped this row entirely - it matches only within a registration division and a blank plc_id yields no division. Set to PLC-000001, Prince Albert.

*** [4 Aug 2026] sg_farm_key WAS 'NO-POLYGON' AND THAT WAS FALSE. *** The sentinel asserts that this ground has no cadastral counterpart, which is what 5 reserves it for - a vernacular name like Drooge Kloof that no diagram ever carried. This parcel is not that: the Surveyor-General publishes its polygon under the exact key its own farm and portion number imply, and it was sitting in geo/prince_albert_*.geojson the whole time. The sentinel is cleared so match_cadastre.py can do its job. Reasoning from absence, stated as fact - the same mistake as Drooge Kloof and Modderdrift, both recorded in 5a.

[13 Aug 2026] Renamed to the one form this model uses for every portion - the portion's own name, then the parent farm, its number and the portion in brackets - so that a name is legible in a list, a search result and a map popup without the reader having to know which farm number is which. It read "Minnies Kraal Portion 5 (No. 112 Ptn 5)" before. Nothing about the ground changed.

The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.

What the record is missing

“Gedeelte 6” is named as a neighbour 5 times and we hold no parcel for it second order · B3 unheld-farm
5 separate surveys in this model put Gedeelte 6 on the boundary of ground we do hold (PAR-000154, PAR-000155). It has no parcel of its own here, so nothing is known about who held it or when, while it borders farms at the centre of the project.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's farm index for the registration division will give it a farm number and a diagram; the cadastre pull in `fetch_cadastre.py` then places it on the map.
Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Minnies Kraal No. 112 Ptn 5 is in the model and drawn on the map, and carries no ownership record of any kind, not a grant, not a transfer, not an occupation.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's diagram for the farm number names the grantee and the date; the deed reference on it opens the transfer chain.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.