Hi Jean,

Thanks for eliminating the Rushen ones.

After posting those ones I was trying to follow what people had posted in reply to Kay, and I think it comes down to (as usual) going back from the known records, rather than starting in the middle. Most importantly what information was given at John's marriage in 1855, which was after the date when additional details were required to be given. Until we know what his father's name and occupation were it is really just guesswork trying to identify him. And good luck for Kay that he had the second marriage, which should have been one of the first records to look at to start identifying his ancestry.
On LDS film no.0106192

Sue