Doorn Kraal No. 116

116 on the cadastre · show on the map

Farm number: No. 116
On the cadastre: 116, whole farmregistered as DOORN KRAAL
District: Prince Albert
Modern surveyed area: 2654.3 ha

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. 39 km from Klaarstroom.

parcel Ground cut out of this farm: Doorn Kraal No. 116 Ptn 1
parcel Ground cut out of this farm: Lot B (Doorn Kraal No. 116 Ptn 3)
parcel Ground cut out of this farm: Toornitzkraal (Doorn Kraal No. 116 Ptn 2)

What the record holds, in order

No dated record on this parcel yet. It is on the map because the Surveyor-General has a polygon for it; the history is not transcribed.

Ground cut out of this farm

Doorn Kraal No. 116 Ptn 1 1/116 · 994.2 ha
Lot B (Doorn Kraal No. 116 Ptn 3)
Toornitzkraal (Doorn Kraal No. 116 Ptn 2) 2/116 · 973.3 ha

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.

Cadastre

Surveyor-General diagram index for this parcel

Research notes

THE FARM ITSELF, added 7 Aug 2026 from two Surveyor-General diagrams It was named twice on PAR-000132's boundary list and had no row of its own - the same shape as Jan Willems Fontein. THE 1903 DIAGRAM GIVES IT AN ALIAS: 'the Farm DOORN KRAAL or Toornits Kraal'. DO NOT CONFLATE THAT WITH PAR-000005, 'Spreeuw Fontein & Toornits Kraal' - that is farm 26 and this is farm 116. Two grounds carrying the same second name is exactly the trap 9 is about. [TO VERIFY]

[7 Aug 2026] PINNED to the cadastre on key W052C061000000000116000000.

[9 Aug 2026] THE ARITHMETIC ON THIS FARM DOES NOT WORK YET, AND ONE DOCUMENT LOOKS MISFILED. checks.py reports farm 116's portions summing to 4,331.5 ha against this row's 2,654.3, which is 63% over, the second-worst on the list. Three things stand out. (1) LOT B IS SOUND: DOC-0250 gives 2,760 morgen = 2,364.1 ha and the modern Portion 3 polygon is 2,364.0, which agrees to 0.004%. (2) LOT B ALONE IS 89% OF THIS ROW, and it was granted on quitrent in its own right to Hendrik Joh van Eck on 15 April 1841, so this row is very likely the REMAINDER rather than the farm as granted - the same thing Klaarstroom No. 178 and probably Rhemhoogte No. 125 turn out to be. (3) DOC-0248, diagram 1154/1863, IS FILED AGAINST PORTION 1 AND GIVES 2,659 MORGEN = 2,277.5 ha, while Portion 1's polygon is 994.2 ha. The diagram is 2.3 times its parcel, which is not a survey difference. On its face 1154/1863 reads like the WHOLE FARM's sheet rather than a portion's. Its own verso (DOC-0249) then records Portion 2 being cut off it in 1900, which is what a whole-farm sheet does and not what a Portion 1 sheet does. LEAD-0140. Note also that Portion 2 is 1,447 morgen 5 roods on that 1900 deduction = 1,239.4 ha, against a modern polygon of 973.3, 21% smaller, so that pairing needs checking too.

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

Open questions

Which Rondabel - Tarka (east) or Traka (Koup)? priority 1 · LEAD-0014
Do the 1818 du Plessis and 1823 de Bruin inventories ('leeningsplaats Rondabel aan de Tarca / in Tarka') describe the Prince Albert Rondabel No. 124 (PAR-000009), or a namesake loan farm in the eastern-Cape Tarka?

What would settle it Placing Greyling's or van Wyk's veldkornetskap, or a loan-farm register entry locating the leeningsplaats Rondabel.
Is diagram 1154/1863 the whole of Doorn Kraal rather than its Portion 1 priority 2 · LEAD-0140
DOC-0248, diagram 1154/1863, is filed in this model against Doorn Kraal Portion 1 and gives 2,659 morgen, 2,277.5 ha. Portion 1's polygon is 994.2 ha, so the diagram is 2.3 times its parcel. Its verso then records Portion 2 being cut off in 1900. Is 1154/1863 the whole farm's sheet, misfiled against a portion?

What would settle it The title block on the face of 1154/1863.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Doorn Kraal No. 116 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.