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
Never mind. They guy on ebay that had the letter figured it out. It wasn't
Frank. However, would like to know which one my Besty Chinn Wilson was
talking about. She wrote the letter in 1832. Here is what she wrote
Frank Chinn has been after Tom -owell Child and brought it home and
Tom -owell is married the third
time old Charles Chinn is well and all his family John is married
to ----Burns Urias daughter
John F. Chinn m. Elizabeth Byrne Jan. 23 1832.
I am assuming that is the son of Charles and Scythia since she mentions
Charles as "old Charles Chinn"
I have no Franks and believe the Thomas she refers to must be a Powell but I
have no Thomas Powells either. These could most likely be kids of her
friends which would be her son's friends as she appears to be telling him
about his friends and relatives.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randie" <randie66(a)earthlink.net>
To: <chinn(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [CHINN] FRANK CHINN
> There are many Frank Chinns. Dates and locations would be a huge help.
>
> Randie
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
CHINN-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message
>
Anyone know who he is. He is mentioned in a letter I have and there is an
Ebay letter signed by F.C. and mentions his son Arthur.
Ring any bells?
Janean
Janean,
Thaddeus McCarty married Ann Chinn 19 May 1758 in Lancaster Co., VA. This Ann Chinn was the daughter of Rawleigh Chinn (died 1756) and his wife Ann (died 1756.) At least that is my understanding!
Judith
Judith Allison Walters
Visit my web page!
http://home1.gte.net/judithaw/index.htm
I have Catherine Chinn as the first wife of Francis Humphrey Christian
(second wife Anne Shearman). I have Catherine as the daughter of Rawleigh
Chinn Jr. and Elizabeth (last name unknown).
I have Ann Chinn, wife of Thaddeus McCarty, as daughter of Rawleigh Chinn
and Esther Ball.
This line is so confusing because of the repetition of the name Rawleigh. I
will have to go over what you sent and see if I can figure it out.
Randie
Ok I'm confused. The entire Order is in the email below.
Janean
Plaintiff produced and claimed under a patent granted to Rawleigh CHINN
which patent is in these words The Right Honorable &c and proved that the
said Rawleigh Chinn departed this life in or about the year 1741 having
first made and executed his last will and testament which said last will and
testament was produced in evidence to the Jury and is in these words to wit.
In the name of God &c The Plaintiff further proved that the said Rawleigh
CHINN the younger departed this life in or about the year 1756 intestate
leaving two daughters his coheir at law one of which said daughters
intermarried with Thaddeus McCARTY and the other with Francis Humphrey
CHRISTIAN which said Francis H. CHRISTIAN and his wife departed this life
intestate leaving Rawleigh Chinn Christian their heir at law .......
Rawleigh Chinn d. in testate 1741. (husband of Esther Ball)
The will of Rawleigh Chinn was not dated and not signed. It was made in the
last week of July or the first weekin August, 1741, written by Dominick
Newgent in the presence "of the testator and John Durham", and presented for
probate the March 2, 1742. (L.Order Bk., 1729-43, 253)
The it continued:
In the name of God &c The Plaintiff further proved that the said Rawleigh
CHINN the younger departed this life in or about the year 1756 intestate
leaving two daughters his coheir at law one of which said daughters
intermarried with Thaddeus McCARTY .........
Now, who would be Rawleigh Chinn the younger that died 1756???
Leaving two daughters....... one which married Thaddeus McCarty? That was
Rawleigh 1741's daughter Sarah Ellen Chinn 1712-1741 and Thaddeus McCarty
1712-1731. They married 1732.
I have no Christians and the only other daughter I have for that Rawleigh is
Ann that married Martin Shearman.
Now HIS son Rawleigh I have as died 10 Mar 1760 so ok will written and/or
died 1756/1760 could be close match but did he also have a daughter that mar
ried Thaddeus McCarty?
Someone please explain who these people are supposed to be cause things are
not matching what I have. Thanks Janean
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Duncan" <GenNutLdn(a)msn.com>
To: "Janean Ray" <JRay38(a)neo.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:14 AM
> This is one of yours, from the Loudoun Order Book.
>
> Pat
>
>
> Order Book T, 15 August 1800
> [p. 420-421] Lesse of Joseph SHEARMAN against Josiah WATSON; same against
> Leven Powell - upon ejectment - Defendants filed the demurrer to evidence
> which was received by the Court and directed to be joined by the Plaintiff
> which is in these words: to maintain the issued joined in this cause the
> Plaintiff produced and claimed under a patent granted to Rawleigh CHINN
> which patent is in these words The Right Honorable &c and proved that the
> said Rawleigh Chinn departed this life in or about the year 1741 having
> first made and executed his last will and testament which said last will
and
> testament was produced in evidence to the Jury and is in these words to
wit.
> In the name of God &c The Plaintiff further proved that the said Rawleigh
> CHINN the younger departed this life in or about the year 1756 intestate
> leaving two daughters his coheir at law one of which said daughters
> intermarried with Thaddeus McCARTY and the other with Francis Humphrey
> CHRISTIAN which said Francis H. CHRISTIAN and his wife departed this life
> intestate leaving Rawleigh Chinn Christian their heir at law the Plaintiff
> then produced a deed from the said Thadeus McCARTY and wife to himself
dated
> 8 Oct 1773 which deed is in these words to wit. This Indenture &c the
> Plaintiff then produced a deed from Rawleigh Chinn CHRISTIAN to himself
> dated 23 Mar 1799 which deed is in these words to wit. This Indenture &c
The
> Plaintiff also produced to the Jury a plat of the survey made in this
cause
> a copy of which said plat is hereto annexed and claimed the land lying
> between the red line from red C to red D and the black line from black C
to
> black D and contended that the same was included in the patent granted to
> the aforesaid Rawleigh Chinn. It was further proved by Thomas Chinn that
he
> heard his father Thomas CHINN dec'd say that Rawleigh CHINN the Younger in
> or about the year 1745, being the Executor of his Father and under his
> Father's said will intitled to the residue of the patents devised by him
as
> aforesaid, proceded to lay of the land among the devisees according to the
> devises of the said will. That he accordingly laid off the land among the
> different claiments and survey'd the patent in the manner the Defendants
> have survey'd the same in this suit and which is described upon the plat
and
> survey herein before referred. It was further proved by Thomas CHINN that
> his Father Thomas CHINN dec'd said that in making the said survey the said
> Rawleigh Chinn the younger declared that he would not extend the first
line
> of the patent further than red B described upon the plat aforesaid for
that
> he did not wish to involve himself in the law suit these was no proof that
> the said Rawleigh Chinn the young was ever in the actual possession of the
> land in dispute or ever exercised any act of ownership over it nor was
there
> any proof that his daughter his aforesaid coheirs or their husbands ever
> were in the actual possession of the said land or ever exercised any act
of
> ownership over it excepting the conveyances aforesaid to the said
Plaintiff.
> It was further proved by Thomas CHINN that his Father Thomas CHINN dec'd
> informed him that Rawleigh CHINN the younger when he laid off the lotts
> among the devisees aforesaid included in some of the surplus quantity of
> land more than they were intitled to receive. It was further proved that
> Leven Powell one of the Defendants in this cause purchased part of one of
> the lotts specifically devised and laid off as aforesaid and the said lott
> being supposed to contain more than what was so specifically devised the
> said Leven Powell obtained from the Plaintiff on 3 Apr 1788 a deed for the
> said surplus in his purchase or lott which said deed is in these words to
> wit. This Indenture &c. It was further proved that the land in dispute in
> case of the Defendant Watson was included in a patent granted to Bryan
> Fairfax bearing date the first day of November 1740 which patent is hereto
> annexed in these words to wit The Right Honourable &c, and that the said
> patent previous to the year 1766 was laid off into lotts which lotts were
> bounded by the red line described upon the platt hereto annexed from red C
> to red D and it was proved that the tenants of the said Fairfax have
> actually occupied part of the land in dispute and up to the said line and
it
> was further given in evidence that from the year 1766 and from thereto up
to
> the present time John GRAHAM the survivor of the patentees GRANT and
GRAHAM
> and Leven POWELL the Defendant to whom the said John conveyed claimed up
to
> the red line B, C the lands on the North of the said line and up to the
same
> under patent granted to said GRANT and GRAHAM which is hereto annexed in
> these words to wit. The Right &c, but no actual possession proved in said
> Graham and now in the said POWELL until two or three years before the War
> and that one a part not now in dispute and the said Defendants say that
the
> aforesaid matter in form aforesaid shewn in evidence to the Jury is not
> sufficient in law to main the issue joined in this cause and that the said
> Defendants to the matter aforesaid in form aforesaid shewn in evidence to
> the Jury aforesaid hath no necessity nor is he obliged by the law of the
> land to answer thereto.
>