Douglas and Thomas,
 
Thank you very much for your responses. After searching the resources I had available, even though fairly limited, printer's error was the only answer I could come up with. Still, I wanted to make sure, and I appreciate what you've found--or didn't find, since, yes, even "negative information" is always helpful. 
 
JP, initially I also wondered if the E.S. could refer to something peculiar to the security's signature. But I eliminated that on the basis that L.S. had nothing to do with the person's position or role in the contract, so likely E.S. would not either. 
 
Interestingly, in this particular case, there was no Teste. as there usually are on others I've seen. Since the Teste was usually the clerk, maybe this passed through without the clerk's examination. As Thomas suggested, looking at other Monroe marriage bonds around this time might give a clearer picture. (I remember as a child seeing rows of boxes with tiny printers letters in them and thinking, how in the world did they ever get anything right, even without certain other conditions Thomas mentions...)
 
Too bad there are not "document collectors" societies like there are for stamp collectors, where finding an early misprint might carry some lagniappe (New Orleans-speak for unexpected bonus)!
 
Thanks to all,
Joan

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html