Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Hayney, Chesher, Nelson, Parker
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/404/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Prince William County Court, March 6th, 1838
Satisfactory evidence was this day adduced in Court to prove that Jane Haney, formerly Jane Chesher and Cloe Chesher, are the only surviving heirs of John Chesher decd.
A Copy teste,
Jn. Williams, CC
Virginia, Prince William County, to wit:
This day Nancy Austin aged 80 years, or thereabout, and a very credible witness personally appeared before me a Justice of the Peace in the County aforesaid and made oath that she knew John Cheshire, a Lieutenant in the Navy during the Revolution, that he returned before the close of the war and died, leaving a wife; and his wife has been dead a great many years; and all the children except John, Jane and Cloe died in infancy. John died after he was of age, intestate, and was never married and Jane Hayney and Cloe Cheshire who are married in the above certificate of our Court of Prince William County ware the only heirs of said Lieutenant John Cheshire decd.
Given under my hand and seal this 16th day of May 1838.
Thos. Nelson (seal)
The foregoing is a copy of a paper on file in the Virginia Land Office.
Teste,
L. H. Parker, Reg. L. Office
Source: Land Bounty Case of John Cheshire as found at the National Archives
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Cornwell, Lynn, Brawner, Lipscomb, Rennoe
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/403/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Moses Lynn's Deposition
Quest: Did you ever know Thomas Nelson to be guilty of an improper act as a magistrate?
Ans: I was tolerably well acquainted with him as a magistrate and never knew him to be guilty of an improper act as such. He never knew of his own knowledge any act of his of an improper kind in that capacity.
Quest: Are you acquainted with Elizabeth Cornwell?
Ans: I am.
Quest: Do you believe Eliza Cornwell to be of a sound and disposing mind?
Ans: I do not believe that she is and such is the general impression in the neighborhood where she resides. She has been of unsound mind for six or eight months.
Ques: Woud you believe Eliza Cornwell on oath?
Ans: I would not because I believe her to be of unsound mind.
Quest: Why was Elizabeth Cornwell sometime called Elizie Rennoe?
Ans: Because she lived with a man of that name for a number of years. She was not his wife becuase he had one living at the same time.
Quest: How old is Elizie Cornwell?
Ans: I do not know her age. She however is an old woman.
Quest: Did you intend to say in a deposition formerly given that you knew anything which would disparage the claim of Jno. Cheshire?
Ans: I did not intend to say such anything.
Quest: Do you re-affirm what you said in a deposition taken on the 1st day of August 1853 before Basil Brawner in reference to the fairness of Thomas Nelson as a ?
Ans: I do. His genl. reputation was such as described in the above refered to deposition. I believe he defrauded me in a transaction about a horse. I believe he would be unfair in a transaction where he was likely to gain by it.
Quest: How long since you saw Elizie Cornwell?
Ans: Six or eight months. She was not called Mrs. Rennoe when this man first commensed living with Rennoe.
Did you intend to say in the deposition given last August that you believed the claim of Jno. Cheshire was obtained by fraudulent means?
Ans: I did not intend to say so for I had no personal knowledge.
Moses Lynn (his mark)
I do hereby certify that the above deposition of Moses Lynn was sworn to before me at the time and place above mentioned.
Basil Brawner, J. P.
State of Virginia, Prince William County, to wit:
I Philip D. Lipscomb clerk of the county court of the county and state aforesaid, do hereby certify that Basil Brawner whose genuine signature is written above, is and was at the time of signing the same a justice of the peace ? for said county, duly commissioned and qualified. Given under my hand and seal of the said court this ? day of January A. D. 1854.
P. D. Lipscomb
Source: Land Bounty Records of John Cheshire as found at the National Archives
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Sinclair, Chesser, Cheshire, Stewart, Harrison, Haney, Carter, Lipscomb
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/402/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
I Mordecai B. Sinclair, no upwards of fifty six years of age, do hereby certify that I was for many years Deputy Clerk of the County Court of Prince William in Virginia, and afterwards Clerk of the Circuit Court of said county, having resided in the said county ever since the fourth day of September 1813. I have examined a paper filed amongst the records of said county court purporting to be the original will of one John Chesser which was admitted to probate in said county court on the 7th day of August 1780 which described in the entry upon the minutes of the said court as the will of John Cheshire. I have had much experience in judging handwriting in my official action as Deputy clerk and clerk as aforesaid. I have carefully examined said original will with a view to form an opinion as to the writing of it. I am satisfied that the body of the will, the signature John Chesser thereto and the addition to it below the signature were all written by Chas. Stewart one of the!
attesting witnesses to the will. It is manifest in my opinion that sho was wrote the signature "Chas. Stewart" under the will and the signature "John Chesser" the true name of the individual described in the will as "Stephen Harrison" is Stephen Harrison. I knew Jane Haney as very old women (now dead) in his lifetime. She was reputed to be the sister of Cloe Cheshire who is now alive, very old and whom I have known for many years. They were always called and known as Cheshires. There are many of that name in the county. I have never known any family of the name of Chesser in the county. Given under my hand this 25th day of October 1855.
M. B. Sinclair
Subscribed and sworn to before ma a Justice of the peace of the county of Prince William in Virginia this 25th day of October 1855.
Capius Carter
State of Virginia
Prince William County, to wit:
I Philip D. Lipscomb Clerk of the county Court of the County of Prince William in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that Capius Carter whose genuine signature is written to the foregoing affidavit, is a Justice of the peace of the said county, duly commissioned and qualified, and that full faith and credit are due to all by official acts as such.
Given under my hand and the seal of the said court this 25th day of October A. D. 1855.
P. D. Lipscomb
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Shelton, Hendricks, Helms, Cheshire, Green, Nelson, Chesher
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/401/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Washington 1st Nov. 1855
Hon. Thos A. Hendricks
Commr. Genl Land Office
Sir:
I beg leave as the attorney of Dr. William Helms respectfully to ask your attention to few considerations which I have taken the liberty to present in the case of John Cheshires heirs to you. It is I think very clearly proved by the papers and evidence that I this day presented to you that there was an John Cheshire a resident of the county of Prince William in the state of Virginia for many years prior to and up to the summer of 1780.
James Green (you call him John in your opinion) who was first put upon the Pension roll as an officer of the Va. State Navy--by the action of the Pension office after war was suspended and finally restored to the roll by an act of Congress who received his pension to the day of his death and when you treat as credible in your opinion--swears positively that he knew John Cheshire as an officer in the said Navy from the fall of 1777 to the spring of 1780. I submit that the fair interpretation of his testimony is not that he knew him continuously during that time in active service but that he saw him from time to time in service seeing him first in the fall of 1777 and last in the spring of 1780. The Va Navy consisted of a number of small vessels employed at various points in the waters surrounding and penetrating the star. He also proves that said John Cheshire--was of the county of Prince William said county lines in the Potomack River and Dumfries near which town said Che!
shire resided, in said county was at that day the great tobacco mart and entrepot of commerce of a very large portion of the then settled portion of siad state.
It is respectfully submitted that John Cheshire might have been an officer in said Navy and at home sick in the autumn of 1779 in entua consistency--with the truth of Greens statement. The record that is to say by the will that Jane Haney and Cloe Cheshire were children of John Cheshire of Prince William County, Va.
I shall ? nothing of the testimony of the various witnesses pro and con.
No importance will I am sure be attached to the attack upon Thomas Nelson made after his death and especially in the absence of any proof whatsoever that he ever had the slightest interest in the claim made it necessary it could be ? that he was for many years surveyor of his county, high sheriff, and for many years and up to his death presiding Justice of the county court of his county. He was a man in good ? circumstances of fine intelligence and whilst he had answered much esteemed by his neighbours generally said generally by all who knew him--that he was a man who rendered more service gratutiously to the people of his county in writing their wills deed ? settling their accounts and composing ? amongst them they give many of his ?. I knew him well fo upwards of 15 years and feel bound as a friend to bear this testimony to his memory.
The certificate of the court at Norfolk was made enparte and does not shew upon whose or what part of testimony it was made most probably it was made upon the testimony of the witness Wm. Carbell.
In regard to your suggestion that if John Chesher was the identical person who served in the Navy there was back pay dues hime--I presume your allusion is to repreciation pay. This was never paid unless called for and I am informed there are many cases in the Department ? that such depreciation pay was not paid until as much as 15 years from the time it was due. The ? of the war in Virginia were greatly confused at the end of the war. Many of the archives having been burnt up. I think in the latter part of 1778 or early in 1779 (Arnolds invasion). If John Cheshire had lived until after the war, he would no doubt have collected this pay but it is not a ? that his exr. failed to apply for it.
In regard to the omision to mention his right to land in his will it will be found that not in one in a hundred of the wills filed in your department have the officers who made them mentioned their claims to bounty land will too made by officers who survived the revolution and about whose services and titles there was no question. ? will satisfy you of this upon ? to him.
Very respectfully
James Shelton
I have written in great hast that you might have my views at once and threon repectfully.
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Helm, Cheshire
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/400/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
William Cheshire of Norfolk Va recognising him (Cox) as one of the heirs of said Captain John Cheshire altho' he had proven in the county court of Norfolk county Va that his (Cheshire's) father was the only child and heir of John Cheshire--also two letters from their agent Mr. Thomas stating that Cheshire died in 1777.
On my return I called at Richmond and obtained copies from the records to show who really commanded the Gallin Caswell and Washington, which I herewith enclose. Do me the favour to file these papers in the case.
I have the honor to be, ver respectfully, yr. obdt. servat.
Wm. Helm
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Cheshire, Oliver, Werekmuller, Hartshorn
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/399/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
I hereby certify that I was well and intemutaly acquainted with William H. Cheshire and Sarah his wife who was Sarah Thomas and that they are both since dead leaving five children viz, William H. C. Cheshire, Sarah T. B. Oliver, Margaret R. Cheshire, Thomas Cheshire and George M. Cheshire and that they are the only heirs at law now living of the said Wm. H. Cheshire and Sarah his lawful wife. In witness my hand and seal this the 30th day of March 1848.
Eliza Werekmuller
State of Virginia Norfolk City to wit
This day personally appeared before me a justice of the peace in and for the said city Eliza Werekmuller and made oath to the truth of the above statement . I hereby certify that I am well acquainted with the named Eliza Werekmuller and that she is a woman worthy of full faith and credit given under my hand and seal this 30th day of March 1848.
J. Hartshorn J. P. (seal)
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Black, Thompson, Harris
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/398/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Opinion of the Attorney General on Virginia Military Bounty Lands
Washington: Wm. H. Harris, Public Printer, 1858.
Opinion.
Attorney General's Office, May 30, 1858.
Sir:
In 1784 Virginia ceded to the United States the largest and most valuable body of land that ever belonged to the public deomain of any State in the world. But previous to the cession she had promised to give certain portions of it to the officers, soldiers, sailors, and marines, who had served during the revolutionary war in her army and navy. She did not strip herself of the power to fulfil this promise without exacting a pledge that it should be fully redeemed by the government of the Union. She was generous to her sister States, but she was at the same time true to her own defenders.
The obligation of the United States to satisfy the claims of the Virginia officers and soldiers has never yet been denied by any department of their government.
Nor has it ever been doubted, as a general principle, that the claims ought to be settled and adjusted according to the laws of Virginia, and by such tribunals as she, in her own wisdom, might see proper to charge with that duty. What a soldier may be entitled to, is a question of State law; and it is not consistent with the spirit or genius of this government to interfere with the administration of State laws, or to expound their meaning. When a question is incidentally raised upon them before an officer, or in the courts of the United States, the interpretation they have received in the State is of binding obligation.
At every step which Virginia took in this business, she asserted in words or by clear implication her right to decide, through her own authorities, upon the validity and amount of the claims made for military bounty land under her laws. She conferred the power successively on her register of the land office, commissioner of war, governor and council, without providing in any case for an appeal.
You ask me if these decisions are in the nature of judicial expositions of the law, and therefore binding. Undoubtedly they are in their character so far like a judicial sentence that they are conclusive upon the parties and their privies. When the constitution or law of any State authorizes a person to decide a given question, the judgment of such person is always conclusive. It makes no difference whether it be a court, a legislative body, an executive officer, or a special tribunal appointed for the purpose. The authority to hear, examine, and decide without appeal, carries with it the power to determine it forever; to make an end of all controversy about it, and to close it against all future inquiry upon either the facts or the law. When therefore, the State of Virginia authorized the governor and council to settle these claims, a decision regularly made by those officers was as conclusive as if the same jurisdiction had been given to and exercised by the supreme co!
urt.
But while these decisions are in their own nature conclusive, and by the laws of Virginia must be so regarded, I am not ready to assert that Congress cannot require you to disregard them. It might be an offence against the principles of public morality, an act of perfidy, and a grievous wrong upon the State, to command that all the cases should be overhauled in your department: but you would still be bound to obey. When Congress was giving you power to exchange scrip for warrants it had a constitutional right to couple the authority with what conditions it pleased; and if a harsh and unfair condition was imposed, the law is not void for that reason. The doctrine of estoppel has no application whatever to legislative acts. The laws passed by Congress are therefore to be the lamp for your feet and the guide to your path.
There is no act of Congress which impugns the right of Virginia to expound her own laws on the subject of bounty lands, or which makes any federal officer a judge of the facts on which a soldier's claim to such lands may be based, unless the act of 31st August, 1852, be an exception. Let us see whether it is or not.
That act provided that outstanding bounty land warrants of this kind, which had been issued previously to the 4th of March, 1852, by the proper authorities of Virginia, might be surrendered to the Secretary of the Interior, and scrip given in place of them. Thus far there is no denial of the State jurisdiction. On the contrary, the action of the State authorities is made the basis of your whole conduct. Under this provision, if any man should come to your department demanding scrip for revolutionary service in the Virginia line without a warrant from the "proper authorities" of that State, you would tell him that he had no shadow of right. The want of an adjudication in his favor at home would be so fatal that no proof, however overwhelming, of his right on original grounds, would supply the defect. It is clear, therefore, that a decision by the Virginia authorities is final and conclusive against the claimant.
But it is contended in some quarters that a decision in favor of the claimant is no protection of his right, that it adds no strength to his claim, and that you are bound to look upon it as a mere nullity. If this be true, you must reexamine every case, and if there should be any defect in that proof, or if you differ from the State authorities about their law, you must be governed by your own opinion, without any respect whatever for theirs. A claimant who thinks he has proved his right and got a judgment upon it from a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, must now be taught to understand that the whole proceeding was mere vanity and vexation of spirit, which might have barred him forever, but could not help him forward one step. The adjudication in his favor may have been forty years old; it may have been founded on documentary evidence now lost; on oral evidence never recorded; or, perchance, on the personal knowledge of the governor or council. It is impossible for yo!
u to rejudge these cases now with the slightest hope of doing justice, since you cannot read the ashes of burnt papers, nor call dead witnesses from their graves to testify. History has given us no more than an outline of the great public events which occurred in the war of the revolution, and even that outline is dimly traced. But who shall now, after three generations have lived and died, be able to tell you minute circumstances in the life of an obscure man, holding a subaltern office or serving in the ranks? A law which refuses to pay a public debt already established by competent authority, unless it is fully proved again by such evidence as the creditor may be able to fish up from the oblivion of eighty years, is the same thing to all practical intents and purposes as a repudiation of that debt. But if Congress has done this thing it is not your fault nor mine.
Those who maintain this to be the true construction of the act of 1852, derive their notion from that provision which requires you to be satisfied that each warrant was "fairly and justly issued according to the laws of Virginia." But I think it is a manifest and most palpable error.
Your examination is confined to the fairness and justness which gave character to the act of issuing the warrant. The law does not direct you to investigate any thing else; and it gives you the laws of Virginia as the standard by which you are to measure its fairness and justness. What then is an issuing fairly and justly according to those laws? Fairly means honestly in this connection, if it means any thing at all. A warrant frauduently issued is not fairly issued. For instance, if the register should issue one for a claim which had been rejected by the governor and council, you would regard it as void because not fairly issued according to the laws of Virginia. Philologists differ about the origin of just; but the question is not important whether it comes from jus a law, or jubere to command, since all agree that in primary and proper signification justly means regularly, duly, in the way prescribed by law. If you find one of these warrants to have been honestly a!
nd regularly issued, it was fairly and justly issued; for the two phrases are synonymous. I know not how it came to pass that your duty to satisfy yourself of the legal regularity and honesty with which a warrant was issued included the power to try over again the questions of fact and law which were settled by the governor and council. It would be difficult to believe that Congress meant anything so inconsistent with the national honor, even if they had said it; but here, the contrary is expressed in words of which the sense can hardly be mistaken.
It is true that you ar authorized to revise the proof and take additional testimony. But to what end, and for what purpose? Not that you may pick flaws of find defects in the opinions given by the governor and council, but solely to convince yourself that there was no dishonesty, no irregulariy, nor no violation of law in the issuing of the warrant. The authority to take testimony for a particular purpose, clearly defined, certainly does not requrie you to perform a totally different function already performed by others in the regular discharge of their legal duty. A sheriff is bound to see that an execution is regularly issued in due form and by the proper officer, but it does not follow that he may therefore review the proceedings of the court and set aside the judgment.
Fairly, justly, according to the laws of Virginia,--these words taken separately, or all together, amount to no more than what might have been said in a single word--regularly or legally. The only difficulty arises out of that overflowing redundancy of expression for which the framers of statutes have such a fondness that they often obscure their meaning by it.
Believing, as I do, that you cannot go behind the adjudications of the governor and council, and taking it for granted that such will be your own view, I need not answer your other questions. But I may as well say, in closing, that if it were my duty to give an opinion on the rights of the staff officers, it would be in full concurrence with the executive of Virginia. The judgments they have obtained in their favor were not only pronounced by competent authority, but were, in themselves, entirely proper and legal.
I am, very respectfully, yours, &c,
J. S. Black,
Hon. J. Thompson
Secretary of the Interior
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Green, Cheshire
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/397/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Washington 20 Oct. 1859
To the Commissioner of the Genl. Land Office
Sir:
Not doubting but that the case of John Cheshires application for Land scrip falls within the decision made in pursuance of the opinion of the Atty. Genl, I withdraw further opposition on my part to the deliver of the scrip.
I am v. obt. servant,
Thos. Green
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Cheshire, Hayney, Green, Nelson, Rasin, Campbell
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/396/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
To the Governor of Virginia
Your petitioners residents of the County of Prince William are the only children of John Cheshire who died in thei County during the war of the Revolution and when we were infants we have always understood that the said John Cheshire (our father) served in the navy of this state as a Lieutenant during the war of the Revolution and that he was entitled to Bounty in Land for his services but that he died before he could or did receive his grants in land for his said services leaving his family in powerty. He died with or leaving a will and we are the only surviving heirs and respectfully ask of our Excellency to take our case into your consideration and if you find our father by his services in the said navy entitled himself to the Bounty in Land due to Lieutenants of the said Navy, we only ask to be allowed the quantity of Land due to him. We are your Excellency's obedient servants.
Jane Hayney
Cloe Cheshire
Prince William County to wit
This day Jane Hayne and Cloe Cheshire personally appeared before me a Justice of the peace in the County aforesaid and made oath that the facts stated in the foregoing memorial are true so far as they have always understood and verily believe. Given under my hand and seal 6th March 1838.
Thos. Nelson, J.P.
Virginia, Fauquier County, to wit
This day James Green of this County personally appeared before me a Justice of the peace in said County and made oath that he was well acquainted with a John Cheshire in the Virginia State Navy from the fall of 1777 until the spring of the year 1780. That the said Cheshire was a master in the service when he (Green) first knew him (Cheshire) and that said Cheshire was commissioned a Leiutenant in the winter of 1778-9 and in that capacity rendered service untill the spring of the year 1780. He Green further states on oath that he thinks said Cheshire entered the service as a master in the fall of the year 1775, and that he lived in Prince William County Virginia. That he settled there previous to the war of the said Revolution and after leaving the Navy lived there until his death. He furtherstates that he was himself a midshipman in the Navy aforesaid and witnessed what he has stated above. Given under my hand and seal this 9th day March 1838. I consider the said Green!
's evidence entitled to full confidence.
Unit Rasin (seal)
(Endorsation on papers in this claim)
Bounty land is allowed in this case for a service of three years as a Lieut. in the State Navy.
D. Campbell
3rd April 1838
Executive Department
Richmond June 13th 1856
I hereby certify that the foregoing petition of Jane Hayne and Cloe Cheshire, together with the certificate of Thos. Nelson J.P. the affidavit of James Green, and the Executive allowance are true copies of papers on file in this Department.
George W. Mumford, Secy of the Comth.
Source: Land Bounty Case of John Cheshire as found at the National Archives
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Tazewell, Mumford
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/395/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
August 19th, 1834
Present Govr. Tazewell
The Governor having now examined all the claims to land bounty which have been filed (and having decided upon all such claims as he has examined (except in a very few cases the decisions of which are postposed for the present for various reasons) he feels it necessary to order that in future, no application for Land Bounty be received by the Secretary of the Commonwealth or be referred to the Commissioner appointed by law to report upon such claims without a special order to that effect from the Executive.
To induce such order to be given in any case the following rules must be observed: a memorial signed by all the parties claiming Land Bounty in any case addressed to the Executive and verified by the affidavit of someone or more of the claimants must be presented. This memorial must set forth the names of the applicants, their places of abode and in what right they claim, the name of the person supposed to be entitled to Land Bounty, in what company, regiment, corps or Vessel he served, when and where he enlisted or entered such service, how long he continued in the same and when and how such service ceased. If such memorial is filed by the party originally entitled to the bounty claimed, the affidavit of the facts stated in it must be certain and positive: but if the memorial be filed by any claimin under such party the affidavit must set forth that the facts stated in the memorial are believed by the affiant to be true.
Upon the exhibition of such a memorial to the Executive, if they shall be satisfied by the statements therein that the facts stated if proved do not entitle the applicant to the bounty land claimed the memorial will be rejected at once. But if supposing the facts stated to be proved, the claim is considered as good, the memorial will then be referred to the Commissioner, to examine the proofs which may exist to sustain it and upon the return of his Report, the Executive will proceed to decide upon the case finally.
It cannot be useful to any to consume the time of the Commissioner in investigating the proof of facts in any case which facts even if found to be as stated would not in the opinion of the Executive entitle the claimant to land bounty: or to consume that of the Executive with repeated suggestions of the same questions of Law that have been often definitively settled in other cases.
L. W. Tawewell
August 18, 1834
Executive Department
Richmond June 13, 1856
I hereby certify that the foregoing extract is truly copied from the Executive Journal of August 19th, 1834.
George W. Mumford
Secy of the Comth.
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
Hi everyone,
Does the CHESHIRE list also cover variations of the surname?
I'm currently researching a Robert CHESSHER who married
Elizabeth Ann HORTON in Dec qtr 1846 - Hackney, London.
I believe this may be them in the 1881 Census England...
Household:
Name - Relation - Marital Status - Gender - Age - Birthplace Occupation
Robert CHESHER - Head - M - Male - 56 - Stepney, Middlesex, England
- Builder
Eliz. Ann CHESHER - Wife - M - Female - 57 - Stepney, Middlesex, England
Source Information: Dwelling 37 Vivian Rd
Census Place London, Middlesex, England
Family History Library Film 1341090
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 0417 / 38
Page Number 69
They had one daughter that I know of Alice CHESSHER c.1863
Alice settled in Queensland (QLD) Australia.
Kind regards,
Sherrie.
--
http://www.silkweb.com.au/
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Wilson, Davis, Johnston, Lee, Munford
Classification: military
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/394/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Executive Department
Richmond Octr. 1st 1853
Sir,
In accordance with the request contained in your letter of the 28th ultimo, I enclose herein a copy of the evidence upon which the claim of John Pettigrew was allowed. The fee for the copy is $1.50.
I have examined the papers in the cases of Capt. Willis Wilson of the State Navy and of Lieut. Willis Wilson of the Continental Line. The residence is not stated in either case.
In the case of Lieut. Wilson, the evidence perhaps may give a clue to find his residence. In the Executive Journal in 1776, there is an order given to Lit. Willis Wilson for a tent. He is said to belong to the 1st Regiment. In the same order a drum is required to be furnished to John Wilson for Captn. Davis Company. Possibly both the Wilsons belonged to the same company. Among the papers filed in 1808 is a certificate of Peter Johnston late a lieut. in Lees Legion. He certifies that Lt. Wilson entered the service in the Continental Line and was Lt. of Infantry in the 11th Regiment of the Virginia Line at the close of the War and Lieut. John Curte late of the Army states that he recollects that Wilson entered the service on the 3rd of Feby 1777. From the particularity with which he gives the date, he and Wilson most probably entered together.
The Journal shews the day when Capt. Willis Wilson of the Navy was commissioned in accordance with the recommendation of the Navy Board but does not give any clue to his residence.
Very respectfully,
George W. Munford
Secy of the Com.
John Wilson, Esq.
Comr of the Genl. Land Office
City of Washington
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Green, Cheshire, Chesher, Border, Wilson, Cheshir, Smith, Helm
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/393/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Washington 12 January 1854
Mr. John Wilson
Comr. Genl. Land Office
Sir:
In 1832 I was employed by Wm. H. Cheshir of Norfolk, who represented himself to be the only heir of Lieutenant John Cheshire of the Navy to get the land bounty due for his services. As early as the 4 Oct. 1852, I wrote to him, in answer to a letter from him, that I found on the Journal of the Navy Board of Oct. 78 that he had been recommended as a Leiutenant, but I could not ascertain when he first entered the service.
In Feb. following, the legislation authorized the Gov. to appoint an agent or Commission to examine the records to see what was due to the officers and soldiers of the Revolution. In December 1833, the Commissioner, John H. Smith, made his report which was sent to the legislature by the Gov. with his annual message. Mr. Smith reports are documents No. 30 to 34 inclusive, bound with the printed journals of that session. These documents being of a very interesting nature, were printed and hundreds of extra copies circulated--stirring up agents and claimants in all parts of the commonwealth. Among the active and successful agents who commenced the business after that time, was Dr. Wm. Helm as I was informed.
The first thing for every agent to do was to possess himself of a copy of these documents--and it would be absurd to suppose Dr. Helm had not a copy of them. Among the persons who employed him to get their pensions was Mr. George Green of Fauquier, alias George James Green, alias James Green as I heard he was thus known at different times.
Dr. Helm, I was informed, succeded in drawing or establishing a pension for him as midshipman James Green. And was very active in getting his land bounty and stated in his appeals to the Governor that he had no interest in the allowance--no doubt truly said so--as I was informed, the agreement between him and the assisting agent was that the latter should have the proportion of the land warrant, and he should have the compensation given in the pension claim--the allowance of the one, however, would essentially aid in establishing the other.
There was one midshipman James Green in the Va. Navy, and the records could very safely be invoked to aid any applicant who would come forward in that name. But I had, years before, been applied to by the heir of James Green who died in Prince George or Surry and the circumstances, detailed on behalf of that party left not a doubt on my mind that their ancestor was the identical officer of that name. But I could not get full proof of three years service and I never presented the claim as I believe. Hence my original distrust of this Fauquier man--who was subsequently struck from the pension rolls, upon a communication, I think of my brother A. M. Green, who referred to the assessors books or other records to show that he had been known as George Green. He took no further part, and by the influential interference of persons whose sympathies and interests were appealed to, he was restored to the pension rolls. Whether he was rightfully restored, I, of course, do not know-!
-But I feel constrained to refer to these facts, which the papers in the pension office, will show, in consequence, of the imposing argument of Mr. Baxter, that James Green's testimony in favor of the identity of the Prince William John Chesser, with the Lieutenant John Cheshire, is entirely "unimpeached."
I did not wish to raise a finger against the credibility of that old man, whom I never knew, but with the knowledge that his statements had been impeached to the extent of striking him from the rolls and of the great difficulty of getting him restored altho "no opposition was made to the restoration, and having heard moreover that irregular means were resorted to, to get him restored, I considered his testimony as at least of such questionable accuracy, as to constrain me to say, what I have done--and that altho is may be true he was the midshipman to whom the records refer, it has been seriously questioned--and altho the weight of evidence so inclined in his favor, that the Council of Pensions, felt bound to question him--(is ? to however, that he would not restore him and that congress did it) yet under all the circumstances, I countered, he does not stand in the attitude of an "unimpeached" witness--but on the contrary, that his affidavit is to be received, with some grai!
ns of allowance at least.
Now is this the only ground of allowance--that should be made for his affidavit--of the 9th March 1838 about John Cheshire. The affidavit, I am informed, is in the handwriting of his friend, Dr. Helm, who was at the very time rendering him such important services--the land warrant not sixty days before, having been issued for 2666 acres--Grateful to his friend, he would naturally be anxious to go, in his testimony, by which that friend was to get 2000 acres to himself, as far as he could properly go.
We may reasonably suppose, that friend exhibited a well worn copy of Smith Reports, (for the Dvet was very diligent and travelled a great deal). Doe 33, page 4, No. 61 "John Cheshire--Lieutenant" under the list of officers of the State Navy, who had and who had not, recd. land bounty. And he may just as reasonable suppose, his friend and benefactor, exhibited to the grateful witness, Smiths Report, of 24 Mr. 1834, fox. No. 43, page 6, near the middle of second column. "John Cheshire, Master State Navy"--under the head of non-commissioned officer of the state Navy, whose names are on the Army Register and who have not recd. land."
Thus fortified for the record, the witness may fairly be presumed to have stated the case, most strongly for his visiter--and as that helpful friend wrote down the testimony with his own heand, we are bound to presume, he lost nothing by the form of words and sentences adopted. Now, what does the witness say. That he was well acquainted with a John Cheshire from the fall of 77 to the Spring of 1780. (say 2 years and 6 mo.) that he was a master when he first kenw him (fall of 77) and was commissioned a Lt. in the winter of 78-9 and served in that capacity till the spring of 80.
He further says on oath, he thinks Cheshire entered the service in teh fall of 1775 and that he lived in P. Wm. Co or that he settled there previous to the war, and after leaving the Navy lived there until his death."
The only grammatical construction of the sentence is that witness thinks that he lived in prince William and thinks he settled there before the war--and thinks that after leaving the Navy lived there until his death.
He further states thus showing he meant to change from an expression of opinion (whether devised from his visiting recent information or otherwise--does not appear) to a statement of fact.
If there were the least doubt, upon any fair construction of the language--we would be entitled to put, under the circumstance, that which was most strongly against Dr. Helm.
But no one can doubt but that the words he thinks applies to the whole which follows in feference to the identity. And that if he had been prosecuted for perjury upon ascertainment, that no part of it was true, his defence that he had merely expressed an opinion would have been unhesitantly admitted as a correct one.
De? the Prince William party of this evidence of identity of Jas. Green, (for his thinking is not to weigh a feather) and they have literally nothing but the statement of the farralous feeble minded old woman easily imposed and interested on behalf of her son. Not interested to the extent of rendering her an incompetent witness, but one wholly unreliable, when guided, exparte by a person, now proved to be capable of he? a feeble witness, if he was interested, and Dr. Helm can say, whether he was not paid for what he did--or was not interested.
Surely her testimony, under the circumstances, is not sufficient to establish against the Govt. a claim for $5000, against too, the general sentiment of the neighborhood in which he lived.
The feeble circumstance, that the inventing of this man, shewed a gun and a sword belonged to him, is still further weakened by the valuation of both together at $3.75 and in more than merely counterbalanced by the same inventory disclosing a pair of "pinchers and shew hammer" confirming the testimony of general reputation, that he was a poor old cobbler, when he died near the middle of the war, and "when he rode, took it on foot" --in the pregnant language of N. Pearson. The exparte, affidavits filed by me are as much entitled to be considered as evidence, as the exparte, affidavit of Jas. Green, now offered to sustain the claim--But a part of it has been retaken on notice and cross examination. Not a witness takes back the allegations, when general reputation--Young French says he knew nothing of official ? of Helm of his own knwledge with an awful undesscoring--Moses Lynns deposition is to the same extent--but shows what that is worth, when on cross examination he affi!
rms all he had said as to Helms general reputation and that he himself believed him to be a cheat. N. Pearson says substantially the same thing--and that Stephen French, who is proved to have been a man of the highest characer, and who was in service from Prince William, often said, this John Chesher, always got out of the way when the soldiers were called for--thus showing French could not possibly have had the least shdow of excuse for such a remark, if this man had held a Lieutenants commission in the Navy, from the very beginning of the war.
The fact, now proved that French, said so is certainly entitled to as much weight--as the thinking of Jas. Green, that the officer died in Prince Wm.
On behalf of the heir of William H. Cheshire who employed my brother A. M. Green and myself, long before the publication of Smiths reports. I have to say, I have not yet obtained satisfactory evidence of his being the son of the true officer. The statement of Moore, that he died in 1778 ? proof. I do not admit it and am not bound by him any more than by any other intermeddler. I have no reason to doubt the identity of that party.
There was but one John Cheshir in the Navy and if the bounty for his services is allowed, i claim if for his heirs, no matter who applied for it. If there were two officer and one applied and the other did not, that other could not ask for the warrant or scrip.
It is not precluded there were two John Cheshires. But if Greens evidence be disregarded, the claim falls.
I do not ask to disregard it but to set aside his thinking as evidence to prior identity.
The will of John Chesher's father in 1771 shows how exceedingly poor he was--and that he gave his tools to John "the pinchen and shew hammer" perhaps.
I trust I have shown it is less manifest than Mr. Border supposed, that the Prince Wm. party is entitled to the scrip.
Yours Respectfully,
Thos. Green
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Helm, Green, Cheshire, Hany, Cowne, Heath
Classification: queries
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/392/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Potomac House, Washington City, 5th Feb. 1854
Commission Genl Land Office
Sir:
In the year 1838 there was three bounty land warrants filed in your office in the names of Jane Hany and Cloe Cheshire for the services of their father John Cheshire. This bounty land was allowed by the Governor of Virginia to the heirs of sd. Cheshire mainly upon the testimony of James Green a midshipman in the Navy of Virginia and I find the claim boldly and bitterly resisted by Mr. Thos. Green. In his efforts to defeat me in the claim, he attacks my conduct and motives by insinuations and upon heresay. Sir, I think I can stop the fallacy of his charges upon heresay and his insinuations unfounded.
After giving a history of the way the commissioner of Revolutionary claims was established 2 opponents by the Legislature and the Governor of Virginia and the coming out of the printed reports from ? in the year 1834 he says it would be absurd to suppose I had not one of the printed reports and thereafter this time I commenced the business of claims agent. I have it in my power to show how and when I commenced the business and thereby show how utterly unworthy his statements are by credit. I lived in the village of Lurray then Shenandoah now Page County Virginia in the year 1829 and in the month of April 1827 received the letter of A. M. Green of which I beg leave to enclose marker No. 1 and ask to copy a few lines of it as follows:
8th Apr. 1829
My Dear Sir:
I have been attending for some months past to the procuring of Land Bounty to the Officers of the Revolution and I have been informed that Capt. Robt. Cowne was one of the band. For the procuring of Bounty I ask one half of whatever may be obtained the customary asking years ago.
Well sir this proposition was on my part respectfully declined. I knew the bounty land had been granted to Mr. Cowne for he had shown me one of the patents signed by Gov. Sooth of Kentucky and the balance of his 4000 acres was ? surveyed but not patented which gave the old gentleman some uneasiness. This Mr. Cowne was my father in law and I returned from Luray in January 1830 to Jeffersonton a village in Culpeper County Va and soon took out letters of administration on his estate. I think it was September the 9th 1830 and brought suit against Virginia for his half pay for life and obtained a judgement for $9411 as which was afterwards paid by an appropriation by act of congress passed 5th July 1832 and that is the how and the when I commenced and not after the printed report of which came out. And I charged a commission of 5 percent on the amt. received from government and not the one half of as Mr. Green witnessed.
Mr. Thos. Green had been an acting agent and attorney from 1826 or 7 for old Colonel Northup the latter residing in Kentucky and Mr. Green in Richmond convenient to the great sources of record information and from which Smith the commissioner spoken of by him Mr. Green obtained all the information that was printed in the interesting documents from No. 30 to 34. Now sir would it not be worse than absurd to suppose the Greens ignorant of the fact of the allowance to Capt. Lieutenant Robert Cowne of 4000 acres of bounty land standing in bold relief on the law book in the Registers office in Richmond? This allowance was made to him in the month of 1783 in plain unmistakeable letters and figures and yet Mr. A. M. Green wrote to me on the 8th day of April 1829 to obtain a contract for bounty land, there was the blind, but the half pay for life was the bounty conveniently aimed at, but ? ? ? man. Mr. James E. Heath, auditor of public accounts of Virginia made a report that was p!
rinted and exceedingly interesting and may copies get ? in the old commonwealth of VA and even to Kentucky, yet Mr. Green mentions it not. Why I ask? Probably because Mr. Heath deals very plainly with agents who had at that time so many contracts for the half pay at the "customary asking years ago" See the said report Dec. 17 by Jos. E. Heath and January 4th 1831. This report contains a list of judgments of 38, 20 of which Mr. T. Green is named as attorney but Northup said in the Land offices the other day that he was a partner of Mr. Green in them that from Jun 1829 to 1835 he and Green were partners.
Now the tricks or manner of "? witness that he ? to me or Mr. Thos Nelson I cannot mae out which he means in a mere custom that he double ? and lays it on my shoulders or Nelsons.
I think sir I have shown you that I was not a dependant upon Smiths reprot to enter the field with out a blush as agent and ? as 1830 in the laudable persuit of my wifes rights and to keep her rights out of the hands of an agent who asked one half to get the claim.
He then attacks his namesakes character. Mr. James Green he calls him George Green alias George James Green, alias James Green.
I was perfectly satisfied with Greens statement in regard to his name. He said he was related to the families of Georges and James's and was named after both but was mostly called James and entered the service by that name. But why I ask should or does Mr. Green apeal? the midshipmans testimony? He took a warrant allowed mainly upon it and upon the testimony of John Lowry of Lancaster county, Va. I mean the bounty warrants of Wm. Newby a ship carpenter 855 5/9 acres is now in your files awaiting its satisfaction in scrip. That warrant as above stated was granted to Nancy Rains the residuary devisee of Wm. Newby a ship carpenter. On the testimony of James Green and John Lowry. It appears as if providence so ordained it that these men should appear in judgement against him in this case to stare him in the face for his unwarrartable assaults upon their character when they are resting in their graves. Yes sir, the blush of shame should mantle his cheek for his reckless a!
nd unworthy assaults upon their characters, these, too on whose testimony he is a beneficiary is not all in Cheshire's warrant was taken out just at the time Newbys was and why did he not object then? He says he had a contract with Wm. H. Cheshire, then was his time he was as well acquainted with the old middie then as now.
I do not mean this as an argument in support of my claims but as mere defense of my reputation which has been I think most unwarrantable attacked.
I am, sir, most respectfully ,
Wm. Helm
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Author: CindyMcC
Surnames: Pearson, Helm, Green, Cheshire, Chesser, Tyler, Lynn
Classification: deed
Message Board URL:
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.cheshire/391/mb.ashx
Message Board Post:
Thomas Green, Esq.
Sir:
Take notice that on Monday the 2nd day of January 1854 between the hours of 9 AM and 7 PM at the office of Douglas Tyler Esq at Prince William Court House Virginia, I shall proceed to take the depositions of sundry witnesses to be read before the Commission of the Genl. Land office and the Secretary of the Interior in Washington City, in the matter of the claim of the heirs of John Chesser alias Cheshire for land bounty in relation to which claim you have filed sundry certificates or affidavits; and that on Tuesday the 3rd day of January 1854 between 9 AM and 6 PM at the residence of Northumberland Pearson in the same County and state aforesaid I shall also take sundry depositions to be read and asked in the same matter pending in the General Land offce, and also on the same day and immediately after closing the depositions at the residence of Northumberland Pearson as aforesaid I shall take sundry depositions of witnesses at the Residence of Benson Lynn in the same county a!
nd state aforesaid to be read in the same matter, at which times and places you will attend in person or by attendance if you think proper.
William Helm
December 21st 1853
Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.