Consanguinity: (kŏn'săng-gwĭn'ĭtē) , relationship by blood, whether linear or collateral.

Primarily concentrating on my Browning family from Harrison County, Ohio (and their subsequent move to Crawford County, Illinois) but I've got Plymell, Crago, Eagleton, Garrard, McConnell, Nichols, Swan, Nevitt, Huls, Markee, Depperman, Papstein/Popstein and Hamilton in there too. And that's just the beginning......
Showing posts with label Court Cases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court Cases. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

The Identity of Elizabeth Barr, or Another Correction!

I've been doing a bit of correcting lately, so in the spirit of that I offer one more.

A Barr reseacher I was in contact with last year made me aware of the fact that a theory that I'd posited as to the identity of Elizabeth Barr of Harrison County was likely unsupported by available facts. For my theory, you can go to this post and read about it there.

(UPDATE:  View the comment below!  My original theory DOES appear to be correct.   Disregard some of the following post, but I keep it here for record's sake.)

For many years, as I said in the above referenced post, this researcher had been searching for the identity of Patrick Barr's wife. I thought that I'd found a clue for him when her name was mentioned in the witness list at William Browning's trial. I thought perhaps that Elizabeth might be Hannah (Barr) Browning's mother and Patrick's wife.

This researcher let me know that he'd taken a trip to the Harrison County (OH) Genealogical Society and poured through some old Barr files.

He told me that amongst the cases of his Barr family (several cases of his Thomas Barr - son of Patrick - and believed siblings involved in mostly food thefts: a domestic turkey, a bushel bag of apples, two geese and then there was one shirt) he had seen another slip of paper that had William Browning released from charges of Larceny.

He said he'd initially considered that Elizabeth Barr could be the children's mother based on the subpoena that I sent him, but upon further review he thought better of it. He based his opinion on two censuses of the Barr family -- the 1810 in Fayette Co., PA (with the mother in the same age category as Patrick) and the 1820 census in Harrison Co., OH (with a missing mother.) Since Elizabeth Barr was called as a witness in March 1821 for William Browning's case he said that it was highly unlikely that the Elizabeth in the subpoena was Thomas and Hannah's mother, but might be a possible second wife of Patrick or an older daughter of his.

Makes sense to me.

I did notice the phrase "released from charges of Larceny" as it pertains to William Browning. Perhaps the slip meant released as in done his time and completed all that was required of him? I don't know and I haven't seen the slip in question.

Anyway, the researcher did find a note in one of the cases and sent me the exact transcription of the paper he found. It follows:

Cadiz Township Feb this 26th 1819

Sir I hope you will be so kind as to collect my Witnesses pay into your own hand for Thos Barr 50 Elizabeth Do 50 Hanna Browning 50 Wm Browning 50
and by so doing you will obledge yours

Patrick Barr


(He said he believed the symbol before the 50 was pounds, as it was a stylized s and capital D.)

Lastly, the researcher and I got to talking about my theory that Samuel and William were brothers. He said he thought that for Samuel Browning to stand up for William Browning and assume equal responsibility of the debt owed, he would be inclined to believe them brothers and both sons of John as well, especially since they were all living in close proximity to each other.

I do wish my cousin Pat was here to share in what I believe is a slow inching toward enough circumstantial evidence to FINALLY assign a father to my Samuel. She would be so happy. I know it gives me thrills!

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Browning V. State of Ohio, Pt. 2 - William Meets His Fate

When we last left poor William Browning he'd went to court and stood alongside Samuel Browning (my ancestor, whom I believe to be his older brother.) Both young men agreed to a security of $200, funds that would be taken from them in the event that William attempted to leave the county and/or refused to report for trial. William didn't abscond but did his duty and reported to the court during its March term in 1821. At that time the court reporter entered the charge against him (larceny, in which he was accused of stealing 16 pounds (two bushels) of cornmeal from one James Tarbet) and ordered that he stand trial. Subpoenas for witnesses were drawn up and given to Sherriff Reazin Arnold to serve. William B. Beebe was the prosecuting attorney in the case for the State; the attorney that William hired for his defense is unknown (although as we shall see, perhaps William did not hire an attorney and instead represented himself. Let's see if you think that's what he did...)

(Oh, before I forget...Disberry Johnson. Recall him, he was a witness in the case? He was the J.P. who married William and Hannah Barr.)

I wish I had more about the trial itself. I wish I had interviews, witness testimony, or William's own testimony. I don't. Unlike my Samuel's daughter Julia's case in 1837 (which you'll find on my sidebar if you're interested), I don't have any documentation featuring the actual content of William's trial. So while I'll have to make do without all the 'juicy bits,' so to speak, I do have a document about this case and its aftermath that didn't exist in Samuel and Julia's trial. This document provides a choice piece of evidence about William and I'll just have to be satisfied with that!

The next document I have about the case is - unfortunately - its conclusion. The court clerk duly noted the proceedings in the Harrison County (OH) Common Pleas Journal (Bk. B, p. 110.) The State of Ohio's (and by proxy, James Tarbet's) lawyer, Walter B. Beebe, came to court and the jury members impanelled for the case were listed as Samuel Beatty, Robert Givin, John Cramlet, Israel R. Kirkpatrick, Henry Carver, John Jamison, Thomas Caldwell, James Patton, William Ross, Peter Thomas, James Evans, and Barak Dickerson. The only juror's name I recognized was the last, Baruch Dickerson. Baruch served as a Captain in the War of 1812. My Samuel Browning served under his command as a private in the war. The transcription of the court clerk's entry is below:

State of Ohio vs William Browning
Indictment for Larceny


This day came Walter B. Beebe Esq Prosecuting Attorney for the state of Ohio in Harrison County and the said William Browning in his own proper person who being ordained and called upon to plead to said Indictment says he is not Guilty of Larceny in manner & form as he stands Charged in Said Indictment and of this he puts himself upon the County for trial and the said Walter Beebe in behalf of the state doth so likewise whereupon a Jury of the County being Called Came, to wit, Samuel Beatty, Robert Givin, John Cramlet, Israel R. Kirkpatrick, Henry Carver, John Jamison (Sr?), Thomas Caldwell, James Patton, William Ross, Peter Thomas, James Evans, and Barak Dickerson all good and lawful men who after being duly empannelled tried Sworn and affirmed to by the aforesaid (??) Between the state of Ohio and the said William Browning the prisoner at the Bar and after hearing the evidence adduced and the arguments of Council as well on part of the State as William Browning, do say upon their respective oaths and affirmations that the said William Browning is Guilty of Larceny in Manner and form as he stands Charged in said Indictment and that they assess the value of the property so stolen at one Dollar and seventy five cents, Whereupon it is considered by the Court that the said William Browning pay a fine of Ten Dollars and Costs of Prosecution and that execution I here therefore (?), and it is further Considered and ordained by the Court that the said William Browning be imprisoned in the Jail of said County Fifteen days.


As you can see, William didn't have an attorney (or at least, one isn't listed.) The court clerk stated that William appeared in 'his own proper person' and pled Not Guilty for himself. None of the witness subpoenas I have state any lawyer's name, either, like they did in Samuel's daughter Julia's case sixteen years later. I may be reading more into the court documentation than is meant, but it seems to me he represented himself during the proceedings. Perhaps he simply didn't have the funds to obtain a lawyer. If so, I think it might indicate why he took the cornmeal to begin with. After all, in September of 1819 William was likely only about 19 years old with a wife and a child (or with one on the way.) Who knows if he was a good farmer or a lazy or inept one. Who knows if he'd had a rash of bad luck and his own harvest was slim. I'm not condoning his actions -- if indeed he did take the cornmeal -- but if he did, he chose to steal food. All I'm saying is that there's probably a reason for that.

William was also called a prisoner at the Bar. Did this mean he had already been in jail pending trial? Sure sounds like it but I don't believe that was the case. If William had been imprisoned he and Samuel would not have needed to place bail. Bouvier's Law Dictionary states the following about prisoners (as of 1856): "Prisoners in civil cases, are persons arrested on original or mesne process, and these may generally be discharged on bail."

Let's explore the legalese first. What is mesne process? Bouvier says that it is "any process issued between original and final process; that is, between the original writ and the execution," or "a writ or proceedings in an action to summon or bring the defendant into court, or compel him to appear or put in bail, and then to hear and answer the plaintiff's claim." Therefore, mesne process in William's case had begun with the document stating William and Samuel has appeared in court to provide bail and had been completed when the court had stated the accusations against William in his presence. It's unfortunate that I don't have the entire case file or else we might know for sure whether William had spent time in jail prior to his actual trial, but with the evidence I see here -- the securing of bond to prevent him from running -- I would hazard an educated guess that he was not.

Anyway, the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of $10 plus any court costs and to spend a total of fifteen days in jail. Then another writ was drawn up, a writ of Fieri Facias. This writ is a judgement for debt and damages and was served to the sherriff of Jefferson County, Ohio, one county west of Harrison. This small clue gives William's whereabouts in the days following the trial.

This writ is an interesting document. The writ, once served, bound the sherriff to obtain the money due the state from the goods and chattels of the convicted and present them to the judges of the said court on a day named in the writ. According to Bouvier's there were many rules the sherriff had to follow in executing this writ:

1) The sheriff could not break the outer door of a house for the purpose of executing a fieri facias, nor could he break a window. He could enter the defendant's house if it was open, and, being once lawfully entered, he could break open an inner door or chest to seize the goods even without any request to open them.

2) Although the sheriff was authorized to enter the house of the party to search for goods he was not allowed to enter that of a stranger for that purpose, without being guilty of a trespass, unless the defendant's goods were actually in the house.

3) The sheriff was allowed to break the outer door of a barn or of a store disconnected with the dwelling-house, and forming no part of the curtilage. 16 Johns. R. 287. The fi. fa.

4) The writ may be executed at any time before, and on the return day, but not on Sunday, where it is forbidden by statute.

Here is the transcription of the writ in William's trial:


(front cover of Writ of FIERI FACIAS)

Fi da et fev facias Ca Sa. To July Term 1821 STATE of Ohio vs. William Browning Indictment for Larceny
Fine ---------------$10.00

Costs ----------------$16.26

fifa Ca Sa& -------- $ .35

_______________
$26.61

Add the jail fees before sentence.......

C.P. 121 Calculate Interest from March 23, 1821 W.B.Beebe Atty for State

(in different handwriting) Rec'd this writ March 29th, 1821


(upside down) May 26th 1821
Made in full, Rezin Arnold, Sherriff --

(body of the Writ of FIERI FACIAS)

State of Ohio Harrison County The State of Ohio to the Sherriff of Jefferson County in said State

Greeting -------------------- We Command you that of the Goods and Chattels Lands & tenements and body of William Browning within your County you cause to be levied the Sum of Ten Dollars being a fine, and the Sum of Sixteen Dollars & twenty two cents Costs of Prosecution together with Interest thereon the Costs of this writ and all legal accruing costs, which the State of Ohio lately in our Court of Common pleas for said of Harrison County to wit at the March Term thereof A.D. 1821 by the Consideration and Judgments of our said Court recovered against the said William Browning in a certain action of Indictment for Larceny --. Whereof the said Wlliam Browning is convict as appears of Record in our said Court and have you that Money on the body of the said William Browning before our said Court at the next Term to be holden at Cadiz in said Harrison County on the thirtieth day of July next to render unto the said State of Ohio for the fine and Costs aforesaid, and have you then there this writ. Witness the honourable Benjamin Tappan President of our said Court at Cadiz this twenty ninth day of March Anno Domini ---- 1821.

William Tingley Clerk


As you can see, the writ was received on 29 March 1821 (received by whom, I'm not sure, for it doesn't say; my assumption is that it was received by the Jefferson County sherriff.) However the writ was served and executed, there is a upside-down notation on the front cover of the writ by Rezin Arnold, the sherriff of Harrison County, that it was "Made In Full" on 26 May 1821.

What happened to William and Hannah after the trial? I really don't know. There are a few William Browning's enumerated in close counties in 1830 (one in Tuscarawas County living close by James Markee, who was Margaret (Markee) Browning's brother) and another in Coshocton County, Ohio, but I can't be certain that either of these are William and Hannah. If I had to guess which one he'd likely be I would guess the Tuscarawas County one, but that's just a guess. So in conclusion, other than the fact that William was in Jefferson County, Ohio, in March-May 1821, I don't know what became of him and Hannah.

It sure was an interesting trial, though!

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Browning v. State of Ohio: Meet William!

Long time readers of my blog are familiar with a court case my ancestor Samuel Browning and his daughter Julia were both involved with in 1837. The links to the case (Browning v. Beck) are on my sidebar so I won’t go into the case here. What I intend to explore today is another court case, one involving a man named William Browning that I located at the same time as the one involving Samuel. Both cases were found in the files of the Harrison County (OH) Genealogical Society.


The recent morsel of information I received from another researcher about Hannah Barr’s father (Patrick Barr from Ireland) and the location of a consent slip for her marriage to William stirred up memories about this other court case. I’d intended to further explore this case just after the Browning v. Beck one but you know what they say about intentions! Who knows, perhaps I wasn’t meant to explore it until after I received this tidbit. You’ll see why soon.



Before we begin, let me say I’m certain the case file I have isn’t a complete one. As I’ve said before, many of the cases that the Harrison County Genealogical Society have in their files were rescued from the dumpsters behind the Harrison County courthouse some years ago. There are at least two documents missing from this particular case that I know of – a witness subpoena and interviews with the victim and the accused. Unless these documents are filed under the name of the plaintiff in the case, they’re likely gone. Although I’m sad because an interview with the defendant in this case would have been lovely, I’m thrilled to have what I have.



I’m afraid I don’t know much about William Browning, the major player in this case. If I did, perhaps my Samuel wouldn’t be as much of a mystery!



William first shows up in Harrison County, OH on 28 February 1818, the day he marries Hannah Barr, the daughter of Patrick Barr of Ireland. The permission slip I mentioned in my last post states that William was the son of John Browning. John signed the slip giving his consent for William to marry Hannah on 6 November 1817.



William next shows up in the 1820 census within two households of Samuel and two households of John. His age in this census is in a range between 16-26 and he has a son below the age of 10. Strangely, he has another male between 16-26 living with him and a female aged 26-45. I am given to understand that the age of consent was 21, so even if both William and his bride were 21 at the time of their marriage that still puts them a little younger than the 26 listed here. I’m not sure if the census is in error, or I am. I’m open to either possibility. At any rate, this range would place William’s birth from 1794-1804. I’m inclined to lean more towards a tighter range of 1798-1801.



He appears again in Dohrman Township in neighboring Tuscarawas Co., OH on the 1830 census – at least I “think” it’s him. Here he is age 20-29, as is his wife, and the couple have three children, two boys (one 5-9, one 0-4) and a girl 0-4. This census would place his birth more in the 1800-1801 range, which I find more likely given his consent to marry form in late 1817. This William is 15 houses down from James and Rhoda (Johnston) Markee. James Markee is Samuel Browning’s brother-in-law. James’ wife Rhoda is almost certainly the daughter of Disberry Johnston, a man who lived in Harrison County and will become important as we explore the upcoming case.



I don’t find a William Browning on the 1840 census and on the 1850, the only William I find was William M. Browning, b. 1810 in Montgomery Co., MD and who married Eliza Johnson (b. 1810 Ireland, the daughter of Irish immigrants) in neighboring Jefferson Co., OH in 1832. This family later moved to Henry Co., IA. I can’t say for sure that this William is not the William of the case (after all, in 1819-1821 a young boy of 9-11 can sure steal things and his age is never given) but other clues in the case itself make me rule him out with almost a certainty.



So where did William and Hannah go? I don’t know. I have one small clue that this case provided, but other than that I’ve never been able to find out what happened to them.



Now on to the case itself.



The case began on 12 December 1820. On this day, William Browning and Samuel Browning made an appearance before the Harrison Co., OH Court of Common Pleas. The boys came to answer a charge of larceny levied against William and agreed to a bail of $200 to ensure that William would not skip town and appear before the next term of court to stand trial. You can see the document to the upper left and a transcription below:



State of Ohio



Harrison County



On the 12th day of December A.D. 1820 personally appeared before me the Subscriber one of the Associate Judges of the Court of Common Pleas for said County William Browning and Samuel Browning and Severally Acknowledged themselves indebted to the State of Ohio in the Sum of two hundred Dollars to be levied on their Goods & Chattels lands and Teniments if Default be made in the Condition following,



The Condition of this Recognizance is such that if the above bound William Browning shall appear at the next term of the Court of Common Pleas of said County to be holden at Cadiz on the 19th day of March next on the first day of the Term and then & there answer to what at that time shall be objected against him on a Charge of Larceny and abide the order of the Court thereon and not depart without leave then this Recognizance to be void & of none effect otherwise to remain in full force and virtue in law --



Taken and acknowledged before me at Cadiz the day and year above writen.



Alexr. Henderson, Assoc. Judge




The next documentation we find on the case is at the March 1821 term of court. William appeared before the court as he was requested to do. I have not included a picture of the list of witnesses (I've covered that here in the transcription) but the document itself is here. Following is a transcription of the proceedings:





State of Ohio vs. Wm. Browning



Indictment for Larceny




Witnesses



James Tarbot



Patrick Barr



Disberry Johnston




A True Bill



(?) McMillan



Plea Not Guilty



Recorded



State of Ohio



Harrison County



At A Court of Common Pleas begun & held at Cadiz in & for said Harrison County on the nineteenth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred & twenty one The grand Jurors of the State of Ohio summoned to enquire for the body of law Harrison County upon their respective oaths & affirmations do precent & find that William Browning late of the township of Cadiz in said Harrison County on the twenty day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred & nineteen at the township aforesaid in the county aforesaid with force & arms one bag made of cloth with two Bushels of corn meal therein contained of the value of two dollars of the goods & chattles of one James Tarbott then & there being found claimant did steal take & carry away contrary to the statute in such case made & provided & against the peace & dignity of the state of Ohio.



Walter B Beebe atty for State in Harrison County






So it’s pretty black and white. William was accused of larceny by James Tarbott/Tarbet. A very cursory search on Ancestry says that James was born c1784 in York Co., PA, and married Margaret ‘Peggy’ McCullough in 1807 in Belmont Co., OH. James was living as late as 1850.



According to the accusation above, on 20 September 1819 William had filled a cloth bag with two bushels (about 16 pounds) of James Tarbet’s cornmeal. While it might seem like a silly thing to get all bent out of shape about nowadays – after all, we can head to the local supermarket and pick up a few pounds of cornmeal for a few dollars – it wasn’t at all funny or silly back then. Think for a minute about how many hours of labor went into that cornmeal. Planting it, tending it, harvesting it, and taking it to the mill to be ground? Months and months of labor in total. It’s not a wonder these things weren’t taken lightly.



It also makes me wonder about the circumstances of the theft. Did William even do it? He said he didn't, but if he did, why? Was he lazy, was he drunk, was it on a dare, did he dislike the man he stole from? Or was he simply hungry? It's not something that ever gets explained from the documents I have. If I had William's testimony, perhaps I'd have some idea.



But aren’t the witnesses interesting? Patrick Barr! Disberry Johnston! So let’s get to the witnesses, shall we?



I don’t have all the witnesses that were subpoenaed for this case. I don’t have the subpoena for Patrick Barr or for James Tarbet, but I do have Disberry’s. I’m sure even more witnesses were called but unless there is a file for James Tarbet in the Harrison County Genealogical Society and the files happen to be filed there instead, we’ll likely never find them. I know that more witnesses were called even without the other case files because I have another one, one that wasn’t listed on this witness bill. Elizabeth Barr!



Now it’s been recently proven that Patrick Barr is Hannah (Barr) Browning’s father. The man who sent us the consent slip had been looking for Patrick Barr for 14 years and was equally desirious of learning the name of Hannah’s mother. Well…..I believe I’ve just found it for him. I believe that this Elizabeth Barr is Patrick’s wife and Hannah’s mother. Seeing them both listed as witnesses in this trial -- and at least in Elizabeth's case, "on part of William Browning" helps further cement my belief that they are Hannah’s parents and that this William Browning, is, indeed, the William that married Hannah Barr.



(Update (3/30/2012): I have learned that Elizabeth Barr was likely Hannah's sister, not her mother. See more here. Ah well...the search continues.)



Disberry Johnston, if you'll recall, was mentioned before as the almost certain father of Rhoda (Johnston) Nevitt Markee. Rhoda was not only the wife of James Markee (the brother of Margaret, wife of Samuel Browning) but she was also the mother of Jane Nevitt, the wife of Margaret and Samuel's son, James Browning. That Disberry was a witness in the trial is yet another connection between the families of my Samuel Browning and the William in this case.



One other thing, though. I hope you all noticed that the man who stepped up with William to provide bail was Samuel Browning? Tell me true, now, genealogist to genealogist….would you all be inclined to a presumption that if Samuel Browning stood up for William, and William is John Browning’s son, that these two boys, close in age (Samuel would've been about 24, William likely 20-22) and having no other male Browning in the immediate area that could be their father, would you also come to a hesitant conclusion that Samuel could also be John’s son?



My gut says yes, and I see it as another small bit of circumstantial evidence. Believe me, I’ve been doing the happy dance around here lately.



More about the trial to come!

Thursday, April 1, 2010

The Browning Series -- Part Four, or Samuel J. Browning and his Two Dickerson/Dickinson Wives

With this post I continue what I call "The Browning Series." Samuel and Margaret Browning had thirteen children between them and after Margaret's death, Samuel chose to take a widow named Sarah Ann (Bell) Gaddis as his second wife. The two of them had two more children together. My plan has been to feature each one of the fifteen children in a separate post and finally tie the family together with a discussion of their parents.

This post is about Samuel J. Browning, the fourth child of Samuel Browning and Margaret Markee. Samuel was born around the year 1821 in Harrison County, Ohio. I first find Samuel, aged 15, involved in a court case in Harrison County. The case is filed in the Harrison County Common Pleas Journal Bk. D. pp. 14-15, in the June Term 1836. Apparently Samuel had performed some sort of Trespass against a man named William Creagh. This is an actual bodily trespass and not the Trespass on the Case that Samuel's father had filed against the man accused of "debauching" his daughter Julia, Samuel's older sister. This case had a number of jurors (Robert Givins, John McKinney, Thomas Day, Joseph D. Smith, John Blair, John Green, Jacob Barger, Joseph Thompson, George Foster, Benjamin Hudson, Joseph Bernhardt, and John H. Beatty) and the panel found for the Plaintiff (Creagh) in the amount of six cents.

After this, Samuel's life gets even more interesting. I sometimes wonder if he didn't do all of what follows just so I could pull my hair out!

Samuel was first married to a woman named Sarah Ann on 4 October 1849 in Tuscarawas County, Ohio. Sarah Ann was born c1831 in Ohio. I say just "Sarah Ann" because ascertaining her actual surname has been an interesting pursuit.

For years I'd referred (and believed) in a typed reference to Samuel and Sarah’s marriage license, which refers to her as a Dickerson. However, a few years ago I received the original marriage license and found it so faded that the writing was virtually invisible. It could have been Dickerson, or it could have been Dickinson. I was sure I'd solve the mystery when I got the chance to go to Tuscarawas County last summer but my visit only deepened the mystery and frustration because the courthouse had the same record that they'd sent me, the horrible copy. The lady there said I could go hunt the original down at the Historical Society but though I tried, it was closed the day I was there. The next time I was in Ohio I visited again on a day it was open only to learn that the man with the key to the vault wasn't in. Grrr! Well, I'll be going again this summer and you can bet I'll be better prepared!

Anyway, though the copy of the license is atrocious -- as you can see by looking at the document here -- what I think I can make out says; “State of Ohio, Tuscarawas County – I certify that I have this day solemnized the marriage of Samuel Browning and Sarah Ann Dick—on Witness my hand this day the –(rest illegible)"

So I turned my hand to researching the options. Both Dickerson and Dickinson families were living in Tuscarawas County where Samuel and Sarah married. Some members of both families had daughters old enough to be Sarah and as names were not included in the 1840 census it cannot be determined where Sarah should be placed. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the two surnames were used interchangeably on old records, or misspelled, and this creates a further problem when attempting to discern relation. Therefore, without positive proof, I had to turn to circumstantial evidence.

It should be noted that the first confirmed connection between either of the families and the Browning family was during the War of 1812. Samuel Browning, Samuel J.’s father, served in the war with a man named Baruch Dickerson. However, this was a full thirty years before the marriage of Samuel and Sarah and does not prove anything other than the fact that a member of each family was acquainted with the other. But there are a few more coincidences. The Dickerson surname is also mentioned in connection with a typed copy of a Tuscarawas County marriage between a woman named Julia Dickerson and a John Christy in 1842. This marriage becomes significant when it is established that Samuel J. Browning and Sarah Ann raised a little boy named John W. Christy. John was born around 1843 and lived with Samuel and Sarah from at least 1850 until the time of Samuel’s death in Crawford County, Illinois in 1862. It is apparent that although no official adoption or guardianship papers have been located, John was adopted by Samuel and Sarah and was raised alongside their own children. The existence of John in Samuel and Sarah’s household, coupled with the marriage between Julia Ann Dickerson and John Christy, certainly suggests that the surname Dickerson was common to both women and that Sarah's raising of John Christy might have been because Julia Ann was her sister.

However, it is equally possible that the two Dickerson marriages were misread, or mistyped, and were actually Dickinson marriages. There is also strong circumstantial evidence – perhaps stronger than that of the Dickerson surname -- to suggest that Sarah was a daughter of George Dickinson and his wife Effa Emmaline. George and Effa lived in Perry Township in Tuscarawas County, Ohio in 1840. They had a number of daughters, a few old enough to fit Sarah’s birthdate of around the year 1831. They were also the parents of a man named George W. Dickinson who later moved to Crawford County, Illinois and who eventually became guardian of Samuel and Sarah Ann’s children. Furthermore, Samuel and Sarah Ann named their firstborn child Effie Emmaline, which was the name of George Dickinson’s wife and who may have also been Sarah Ann’s mother. Their second child, George Browning, was also seemingly named after a Dickinson. Lastly, when Fred Fulling, grandson of Samuel and Sarah Ann, registered the funeral of his mother Effie (Browning) Fulling, he stated that his grandmother’s maiden name had been Dickinson.

Looking at all the above evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that most likely Saran Ann’s surname was Dickinson. The children that Samuel and Sarah Ann had were their adopted son John W. Christy and their known children Effie Emmaline, George, and Samuel III.

Samuel J., Sarah Ann and their family moved to Crawford County, Illinois some time after September of 1850 but before August of 1851. Despite the fact that the deed record of Crawford County doesn't place Samuel J. and Sarah Ann in the county until Samuel purchased land from Augustus French on 15 January 1856, other documentary evidence places them there years before then. One of the bills in Samuel’s probate records that was paid out of his estate at his death is a medical bill totaling $6.55. This bill lists visits and medicine the doctor provided to Samuel, his wife, and his child over a period spanning two years from 12 August 1851 to 30 March 1852. These visits were from a Crawford County doctor. This evidence reveals that the couple came to the county along with the rest of Samuel J.’s brothers and sisters, and not at some period thereafter.

Land records in Crawford County are sparse for Samuel J. Browning. The first, dated 15 January 1856, was the E ½ of Section 20, Twn 6N, Range 11W, totaling 70 acres, purchased from Augustus French. The second, dated 6 March 1857 for a parcel of land totaling 40 acres, being the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 20, Twn. 6N, Range 11W, was purchased from William Stuart. The same probate inventory records mentioned above, however, prove that Samuel owned more land than these deeds disclose. According to his real estate inventory, Samuel (at the time of his death in September of 1862) also owned the S ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 20, Twn 6N, Range 11W, totaling 40 acres, purchased from Samuel Stuart. The inventory states that Samuel held this land by warranty deed.

In the 1855 state census in Crawford County, taken in October, Samuel J. and Sarah Ann are shown with John W. Christy and their two children Effie Emmaline and George. By July of 1860, however, Samuel is enumerated without Sarah Ann, with his three children -- Emmaline, George, and 3-yr old Sam -- and John W. Christy. Sarah Ann had therefore most likely died in Crawford County some time between the birth of her last child in 1857 but before July of 1860. A more exact date or the location of her burial remains unknown.

After Sarah Ann’s death Samuel J. married again....and the plot thickens. He married a woman named Julia Ann Dickinson on 15 November 1860 in Crawford County, Illinois. Julia’s parentage remains unknown but it seems most likely that she was a sister or cousin of Sarah Ann, Samuel J. Browning’s first wife. The couple had no known children.

Sometime in the summer of 1862, Samuel and one of his children – all indications suggest his youngest son Sam -- became ill. According to Samuel’s probate records, a bill made out to Dr. Nathaniel Steele indicates that the doctor saw Samuel J. three times in late July 1862, and in the last week of September 1862 made a total of eight trips to Samuel’s house to administer medicine. Samuel did not recover from this illness and died in Crawford County on 27 September 1862. His burial location is unknown but as his estate shows a charge of $6 dated 3 October 1862 from Thomas Corbin for making Samuel’s coffin, it seems certain he was buried in Crawford County.

Guardianship of Samuel’s children (Julia’s stepchildren) was given temporarily to Ethelbert Callahan from the time of their father’s death in late 1862 until the March 1863 term of the Crawford County court. Then guardianship was granted permanently to George W. Dickinson. George, referred to previously, was most likely Sarah Ann’s brother and some relation to Julia Ann Dickinson. He would therefore have been one of the primary choices to take in Sarah’s children.

Samuel’s estate records reveal a great deal of information. Isaac D. Mail was appointed administrator of Samuel J.’s estate and the estate sale was conducted on 23 October 1862. Claims against the estate were taken by Mr. Mail in Robinson outside the Crawford County courthouse on 19 January and 21 January 1863. Some of these claims were promissory notes and it was plain that Samuel could not write; he made his mark on the notes in lieu of a signature. One of these claims shines a light of mystery on a neighbor; the John Wilson family.

In 1860, a Julia Wilson, aged 35 and born in Ohio, was living next door to Samuel. With her were two daughters, Maria L. and Ellen. One of Samuel’s promissory notes reveals his promise, in six years’ time, to pay one hundred dollars in money, one bed, and one cow each to Maria L. and to Minerva Ellen Wilson. The promise was made in March of 1861 for value received. Samuel died before this promise could be fulfilled and his estate settled with the estate of John Wilson, the girls’ father. The question of what relation, if any, Samuel shared with the Wilson family is currently unknown. I have a few wonderings, though. Was the Julia who married Samuel in Nov 1860 actually Julia Wilson, wife of John? If so, why would she revert to her (possible) maiden name to marry Samuel? I know, it doesn't seem likely. It's more likely that the two families were neighbors and Samuel owned John's estate for some work. But still...in writing this post my memory has been jogged and I think I have more information about this family now. I just can't remember where I put it......gah! If I find it I'll certainly post an update.

On 8 March 1864, nearly two years after Samuel’s death, his widow Julia Ann filed a quitclaim deed in Crawford County between herself and Alexander MacHatton. The deed involved two separate parcels of land, one of which – the east half of the southeast quarter of Section Twenty, Township Six North, Range Eleven West – was part of the listed property in Samuel’s estate papers. Nothing further about Julia Ann Browning has been found excepting two marriages for a “Julia Browning” in Crawford County – one to George Jones in 1866 and another to John Shanks in 1872. Whether either of these women is Julia Ann, the widow of Samuel J. Browning, is as yet unknown.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Wordless Wednesday - William Browning vs. The State of Ohio (1821)




Is the William Browning at the center of this Harrison County, Ohio 1821 larceny case a relative (a younger brother, perhaps?) of my ancestor Samuel Browning?

Stay tuned as I delve into this case.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Another Famous Name in My Browning Trial?

A sharp-eyed reader (Cathy at Detour Through History) commented today on a small tidbit of information I'd included concerning my account of the trials of my Samuel Browning (and Julia Ann Browning his daughter) versus James Beck. I am ever so glad she did because I certainly missed it completely.

The list of jurors convened for Samuel's trial against James Beck included one Emanuel Custer. Cathy wondered whether this Emanuel Custer could possibly be the Emanuel Henry Custer (1806 - 1892) who was the father of George Armstrong Custer!

Well, I can't be absolutely certain of course, but it is definitely a possibility. Emanuel Custer was married twice, both times in Harrison County. His second wife was Maria Ward Kirkpatrick, who became George's mother. The couple married in New Rumley in Harrison County, OH in 1836. George was born in New Rumley on 5 Dec 1839.

My Sam's trial was 1837. New Rumley is only a township away from Cadiz, the county seat and location of the trial. It is completely possible that Emanuel, aged 31 at the time, was called to sit as a juror. If so, that makes two brushes (the first being Sam's lawyer Edwin M. Stanton) with the famous for my little old Sam!

Thanks for bringing this interesting bit of (possible) historical connection to my attention, Cathy!

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Browning v. Beck Pt 9 - What A Web We Weave

I've learned much more about the Brownings than I could have hoped to learn by taking the time to research and analyze the Browning v. Beck cases brought up by Samuel and Julia Ann.

Far and away, the most important aspect of both cases are the statements made by Samuel and Julia Ann. To my knowledge, Samuel Browning never left a will. I've looked for his will in Crawford County and the surrounding counties (Shelby County was the county he and his second wife were residing in at the time of his death and the county his youngest daughter's daughter said he died in) with no luck. Since I've been able to find no will I considered he might have died intestate, so of course I've also looked into probate records. Nothing. In birth he seems to have hatched and in death he seems to have simply faded away. It's frustrating...

The legal statement he made for this case then, is very important to me. Considering my lack of any other written documentation, this statement is the best proof I have that Samuel was Julia Ann's father. I have implied sources like census records and the statement "dau of S&M Browning" on Julia Ann's tombstone, but this document states their relationship clearly.

Julia's statement, taken side by side with Samuel's, demonstrates another important familial link. Julia states that she was with her sister Rachel. One could infer from this -- and I do -- that Rachel is also Samuel's daughter. Couple this with Rachel's appearance on census records with Samuel and Margaret and I have a fairly good circumstantial case for saying that Rachel is also a daughter of Samuel Browning and Margaret Markee.

There are other relationships that these two statements help to bolster by contributing that extra layer of circumstance. Rachel's son John Wesley McConnell is found in the 1870 census of Noble County, Indiana as a farmhand in the household of Isaac F. and Susannah Crago. Susannah's maiden name was Browning and this couple had been married in Crawford County, Illinois, where the Brownings had moved in the early 1850's. To all appearances, the fact that one of Rachel's sons was living in Isaac and Susannah's household certainly shores up the idea that Susannah (Browning) Crago was another of Samuel and Margaret's daughters.

Additionally, a young girl named Emma Hoy spent some time in Harrison County in 1870, visiting (or living for a time) with Rachel's family. Emma was the daughter of James Hoy and Margaret Browning. James and Margaret were found in the 1850 census of Tuscarawas Co., OH, living with Julia Ann and her husband, James Hoy's brother John Hoy. To find James and Margaret Hoy's daughter Emma staying with Rachel and her family is another circumstance that lends credence to the idea that Margaret, wife of James Hoy, is yet another of Samuel and Margaret's daughters.

I'm sure there are more hidden gems to this case that I have yet to discover. It's funny how one seemingly small thread of information can transform into a long and winding one weaving many different aspects of a family together. Finding these threads is one of the deepest sorts of pleasures of genealogy.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Browning v. Beck Pt 8 - The Cases Are Resolved

-->When we last left off, Samuel Browning had submitted his statement for his Trespass On The Case suit against James Beck, the man accused of fathering the child born to Samuel’s eldest daughter, 16-yr old Julia Ann. Julia Ann -- who herself was a plaintiff in a case of Bastardy against Beck -- had also submitted her statement. Counsel for both sides had been drawing up witness lists and filling out subpoenas for the witnesses they’d chosen to call for both cases. William Milligan, the sheriff of Harrison County, was given all the subpoenas to serve. He began serving them on 18 October for Julia Ann’s Bastardy suit and had finished serving them (either in writing or by reading them aloud) to all the witnesses by 27 October for Samuel’s Trespass On The Case suit.

Witnesses subpoened for Julia Ann’s suit were scheduled to attend court at 8 am on 24 October 1837, when the proceedings in the Bastardy case would begin. Witnesses subpoened for Samuel’s suit were scheduled to attend court at 8 am on 27 October 1837, when the proceedings in the Trespass On The Case trial would begin. All the witnesses (subpoened or not) had shown up at their appointed times by the morning of 27 October and were duly sworn in to give their testimony in the proceedings. Well…..all except one.

Hester Nash, one of the witnesses subpoened as a witness for the Defense in both Julia Ann’s Bastardy suit and Samuel’s Trespass suit did not show on 24 October as she’d been directed to do so by the court. On 28 October an attachment was made to the case files and the State of Ohio drafted its own case against Hester entitled, “The State Of Ohio vs. Hester Nash: Attachment for Contempt.” William Milligan sent his Deputy Sherriff, William Cady, to fetch Hester and bring her to court. He did as instructed and placed her bodily before the Court. The county held her in contempt and levied a $100 fine as well as charging her mileage, a service fee, and a charge that was called “bringing the lady up” that came to an additional $1.40.

I have to wonder……why didn’t she want to testify? Was she a friend of Julia’s?

The trials began as scheduled. I don’t have any documents pertaining to the substance of the trial testimony (I’m hoping that some of this might survive in the James Beck file (if there IS one! -- I’m busy checking that out) in the Harrison County Historical Society’s record vaults. The only records that I do have are those pertaining to the jurists chosen in each of the cases and the verdicts the respective juries handed down.

The jury convened in the matter of Julia Ann Browning vs. James Beck on 26 October 1837. James Christy, McCauslin McGonigle, Thomas Day, Emanuel Custer, John L. Layport, William Cunningham, George Foster, James Haverfield, Charles Patterson, George Day, James Matthias and David G. McGuire were chosen as the jurists. They heard testimony on the part of the Plaintiff and adjourned until the next morning. The following morning (27 October) they reconvened and heard testimony from the Defense before rendering their verdict: guilty as charged. Sentencing was to be at a later date.

The following day, on 28 October 1837, the jury convened in the matter of Samuel Browning vs. James Beck. Zadock Bliss, James D. Anderson, George Baker, Silvanus Lamb, Elzy Chaney, Peter Barger, Samuel Boland, Alexander Beall, John Layport, Robert Guinea, Ephraim Johnson and William Barrett were chosen as the jurists for the case. The panel heard testimony from both defense and plaintiff and rendered their verdict the same day: guilty in “manner and form.” He was sentenced to pay a sum of $100 in damages to Samuel.

It had been a rough two days for James Beck.

Beck’s lawyer, John Goodenow, filed a motion for a new trial in the case between his client and Julia Ann. The document he filed with the court is interesting but it is difficult to read in places. I’d welcome any translation of the words that I’ve left out! Anyway, the motion suggests that there was testimony given that might not place James Beck as the only man ever to share Julia Ann’s bed. I unfortunately don’t have the trial testimony itself but this little tease sure does make me wish I did! I’m sure it was very much a “he said/she said” case, hinging upon witness testimony, credibility, and whether or not Julia could convince the men sitting in judgement of her that she wasn’t a “loose woman” but a simple girl naïve enough to believe words a man would say to have his way with her. If Beck was a bit of a rounder (the other case against him in a matter similar to this comes to mind -- the case I thought I copied but did not, alas!) then his assumption of guilt would be even harder to surmount. Without DNA it would be nearly impossible to prove Beck’s case, and he does seem to have went into it at somewhat of a disadvantage.

The motion (see right) was as follows:

OHIO on complaint of JULIA ANN BROWNING vs. JAMES BECK


Complaint of Bastardy after Verdict of Guilty
The Defendant, by his counsel, moves the Court here for a new trial, for the causes following:
1. that the credibility of the complaining witness was so far impeached as to render her testimony unsafe and insufficient uncorroborated, to sustain this issue before the jury.

2. that the evidences when altogether concl
usively show that if the Defendant has connection with the complainant at the times she states, still he is not the father of the child.

3. that the case made out by the testimony entire is one which clearly entitles the Defendant to an acquittal.


4. that the verdict is against the evidence given to the jury and against the law governing the case.


Jno. M. Goodinow

atty for Defendant


In any event, the Court summarily overruled the motion on 30 October 1837. They sentenced him as follows:

“…do order that the said James Beck stand charged with the maintenance thereof as follows to wit: that he pay to the clerk of this court for the time being for the use of the mother of said child or other person having the care or maintenance thereof the sum of fifty-four dollars. And also that he pay weekly into the hands of the clerk of this court for the time being for the use aforesaid the sum of seventy-five cents for the period of five years from the expiration of the term of this court, provided the said weekly payments shall cease in case of the death of the said child, and it is further considered and ordered by the court that the said James Beck pay the costs of this prosecution.”

In James Beck’s case against Samuel, things weren’t much better. Damages had been assessed in the amount of $100. Beck was advised to pursue the matter further and he gave notice of his intention to take the matter to the Ohio State Supreme Court. Samuel’s lawyers -- the famous Dewey and Stanton -- made their intention to do the same equally known (I imagine because the damages were much less than the $1000 Samuel had wanted!)

I researched the Ohio State Supreme Court cases in the ten years after the verdict. No further record of the case has been located. I imagine it was merely an empty threat.

And that resolves the cases surrounding my ancestor, Samuel Browning, and his daughter Julia Ann. What a glimpse into the legal system of the early 1800’s!

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Browning v. Beck Pt 7 - The Witnesses Wilson - Are They Connected?

As I mentioned earlier, I received an intriguing letter today. A gentleman emailed me to say he was curious about whether I had any additional information on two of the witnesses mentioned in Julia's bastardy/Samuel's Trespass cases -- James Wilson and James Wilson, Jr.

I sat down to email him a quick "no" and then thought better about it as something went "ding" in the recesses of my brain. I sent him the following reply, which I'll post with only minor editing before making more comments to amend it:

When I sat down a moment ago to respond to your email I was planning to let you know that there wasn't any further information I could offer on the two men named James Wilson that testified in the case...however, I may have been a bit hasty. Something that may or may not be connected just popped into my head this very moment that's made me excited and intrigued and definitely makes me wish I was home right now instead of at work!

Take these as the grains of salt that they are, but here are my thoughts:

My Samuel Browning had a son named Samuel J., younger brother of the Julia Ann featured in the bastardy case. Samuel J. married twice during his lifetime, first to a woman named Sarah Ann Dickinson/Dickerson in Harrison Co OH and second to Julia Ann Dickinson in Crawford Co IL (my instincts are that the two women are related, sisters or possibly cousins.) Anyway, the second wife Julia Ann had also been married before. Here's where it gets interesting. Julia's first husband's name had been James Wilson!

In Samuel J.'s estate papers (1862, Crawford Co., IL) he left money and a bed to each of the two girls Julia had with James Wilson. Now my memory is vague -- I'd have to pull the estate papers to be sure -- but I think it was a goodly sum for both. I found this will years ago before I knew much about Sam J.'s family and relations and had always wondered if there was any connection to the Wilson family and if so, what that was. It didn't make much sense to me that Sam J. would leave so much to two girls that weren't even his family. However, if the two girls were his first wife's nieces and his own children's cousins as well as his stepchildren, that might be a different thing.

...All this now makes me wonder -- is the Wilson family referenced in the trial the SAME Wilson family that the Dickinson girls married into? I haven't any idea. It just seems like a coincidence worth some consideration.

Now for my comments.

I consulted my copy of Samuel J. Browning's estate papers and discovered -- much to my dismay -- that my memory was faulty at the most fundamental level. The first husband of Samuel J. Browning's second wife Julia Ann Dickinson was not JAMES Wilson, but JOHN Wilson. Given that the surname Wilson is quite common it's prudent for me to assume no relation unless more information to the contrary is obtained.

Still, there are aspects of the estate papers that are intriguing. I don't believe I'm wrong to assume that Samuel J.'s relationship to his second wife's girls may be more than simply that of a concerned stepfather. The wording of his promissory notes to the girls is interesting. He states,

"Six years and six months after date I promise to pay Maria L Wilson (and in the other, Minerva E. Wilson) one hundred dollars in money and one cow, and one bed, for value received this 30th day of March 1861."

Samuel J. died in October of 1862. The following note was included in his estate papers:

"Received of I. D. Mail, Administrator of Samuel J Browning Dec two hundred and seventy four dollars in full of the claims of Maria L. Wilson and Minerva E. Wilson, minors heirs of John U. Wilson Aug 20th 1863. (signed) G. W. Dickinson, guardian."

I find no other references to the girls in Samuel's estate papers. Mariah Louisa went on to marry James M. Gullett in Crawford County on 14 Sept 1866. Her sister Minerva Ellen may have been the "Manerva E." who married H. A. Garrard on 12 Feb 1871. That's interesting to me because my grandmother's maiden name was Garrard.

All this to say that so far, the Wilson family mentioned in the bastardy case still isn't positively connected to my Brownings. It sure was an interesting search though!

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Browning v. Beck Pt 6 - Witnesses For The Defense

Other than learning a number of things about citizens living in the same township that my Brownings were living in -- and learning that one of Samuel's lawyers was Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War in the Lincoln administration -- Samuel and Julia Ann's list of witnesses has so far been a fairly fruitless pursuit. The list hasn't done what I most hoped it would do, which was to yield information about Samuel's relations or parentage. As far as I've been able to tell, Samuel just up and hatched!

I turned my attention, therefore, to the witnesses for the defense.

One witness for the defense was named Jonathan Peoples. This name jumped out at me, but not initially…this one leaped out after I came home and was looking over all the old Browning deeds.

19 Aug 1837: Jonathan PEOPLES to Jones & Browning -- between Jonathan Peoples and Mahala his wife of Harrison County on the one part, and Ellis D. Jones and Lemuel Browning of Harrison County on the other.

Jonathan Peoples married Mahala Norris in Harrison County on 19 Oct 1826. I don't know if Jonathan was connected to my Brownings or not, but he did purchase land from one, and during the time of the trial! I'll make sure to note his name in case I run across it in further research.

As I mentioned, though, one set of names in that list jumped out at me immediately and when I first saw them I got super excited. I recognized them immediately from prior research. Thomas and Hannah Drake are listed as witnesses for the defense in Julia Ann's bastardy case, and Hannah is called separately as a witness for James Beck in Samuel's Trespass On The Case suit. What makes this pertinent is that Hannah's maiden name was Browning.

I've written a book about Samuel and Margaret and during the research phase of the writing I'd come across a number of Browning marriages in Harrison County that I couldn't connect with my Samuel. Hannah's to Thomas Drake is one of these. She and Thomas were married in January of 1837, only two months prior to the beginning of the case in March. Knowing what I know now, the man who married them also becomes relevant -- they were married by Samuel Skinner! Samuel was a Justice of the Peace as well as the man who went to interview Julia Ann in her bed four days after Washington's birth and who signed many of the opening documents in this case. By October, however, he's no longer listed on any documentation other than as a witness. I don't know whether this is because he'd completed his term as an officer of the court between March and October 1837 or whether being called as a witness at trial rendered him unable to continue due to conflict of interest.

But back to Thomas and Hannah.

Hannah Browning was born c1814, probably in Ohio but perhaps in Maryland (the 1850 census says Maryland but the 1860 and the 1870 says Ohio.) Thomas Drake was born in 1810 in Maryland and was the son of William Drake, Jr. and his wife Mary, maiden name unknown. William and Mary Drake moved to Harrison County from Bedford County, Pennsylvania in 1819. Once they arrived they bought property in Nottingham Township from Neal and Susannah Peacock. In April of 1835 William and Mary sold half of their property to their son Thomas (they sold the other half to Reuben Allen) and moved to Guernsey County, Ohio.

William Drake Jr.'s parents were William Drake, Sr. and Elizabeth Hinkle. They were married on 17 Oct 1780 in Frederick County, Maryland. William Sr. was born c1760 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In the 1800 census, William Sr. and Elizabeth lived in Bedford County, Pennsylvania, and as a widow, Elizabeth Hinkle Drake moved to Allegany County, Maryland (which shares a border with Bedford County) to join her brother, George Hinkle.

Thomas and Hannah were called to testify in the trial in 1837 but by 1840 they'd moved to Washington Township in Monroe County, Ohio, where they stayed until 1869. At that time they picked up stakes with most of their kids -- seven out of their ten -- and moved to Washington Township in Wapello County, Iowa. They're found there in the 1870 census but can't be found in the 1880. Barring any evidence to the contrary, it's presumed they both died in Iowa.

Seeing Thomas and Hannah on the witness list was exciting for me and my heart leapt, thinking that would add to the circumstantial evidence that might link Hannah Browning to my Samuel Browning. I was a bit befuddled to discover that instead of testifying for the prosecution, they were asked to testify for the defense. None of the subpoenas specify whether witnesses were called under duress -- the point of a subpoena is to call witnesses to testify whether they'd prefer to do so or not. I'm curious whether Beck called Thomas and Hannah under duress or if they were indeed willing witnesses for his claim. I hope to answer this question soon; I've contacted the HCGS again to see if they'll look up files for James Beck and Thomas and Hannah Drake. I'm hoping some sort of trial testimony survived. Wouldn't that be grand!

Hannah was born around 1814. My ancestor, James Browning, the first son of Samuel and Margaret, was born in 1815. Could Hannah be one of Samuel's youngest siblings? Could she be a niece? Might she even be related at all? It's so frustrating…

I've been in touch with a descendent of Thomas and Hannah's for years now, Pam Drake. She and I have wondered whether we're related so many times I can't begin to count them all. (Oh and by the way, should anyone reading this be interested in the Drake family I mentioned above, please contact Pam at padrake@sbcglobal.net) My father's DNA tests came back yesterday and unfortunately we can't test between Pam and I because I only did the patrilineal marker and her Browning was a female. Rats. Anyway, I'll be posting more about my dad's DNA in a later post. For right now, I continue to wonder why Hannah testified in the trial. I sure hope I can find out.


Sunday, May 17, 2009

Browning v. Beck, Pt 5 - “State Your Name For The Record, Please?”

When we last left it -- on 26 Oct 1837 -- Samuel had submitted his statement for Trespass On The Case. Counsel for both sides were tasked with drawing up witness lists and filling out subpoenas for those they chose to call. William Milligan, the sheriff of Harrison County, was given all the subpoenas to serve.

He had served all the supoenas (either in writing or by reading them aloud) to all the witnesses by 27 October. Listed on all the subpoenas is a tally of the cost of his services. On each one, he made sure to note his mileage. I can't help but picture the odometer on his horse ticking away….

Following is as complete a list of witnesses as I'm aware of, since I may be missing some case files:


LIST OF WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFF

In Julia Ann's Bastardy Case

In Samuel's Trespass On The Case



Joseph Townsend

David Rankin

Samuel Skinner, Esq

Sarah Rankin

Alexander Hamilton

Timothy Titus

Samuel Crawford

David Cunningham

James Rowland

John Mitchell

Uriah Moore

Samuel Clifford

Cyrus Rowland


James Wilson Jr




LIST OF WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT (James Beck)

In Julia Ann's Bastardy Case

In Samuel's Trespass On The Case



Hester Nash

Jonathan Peoples

Rebecca Hamilton

Abraham Camp

John Ruby

Nancy Camp

Jonathan Peoples

Hannah Drake

Abraham Camp

Washington Brock

Nancy Camp

Joseph Townsend

Thomas Drake

William Jones

Hannah Drake

Hester Nash


Charles Kinsey


Charles Wells Jr


Joseph Johnson



LIST OF WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFF

SUBPOENAED AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL

In Julia Ann's Bastardy Case

In Samuel's Trespass On The Case



Thomas Nash

Peter Hinton

Amy Nash

Joseph Rea


Philip Fulton Jr


James Wilson


Uriah Titus


Rebecca Hamilton



LIST OF WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENDANT (James Beck)

SUBPOENAED AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL

In Julia Ann's Bastardy Case


Washington Brock



Looking over the witness lists, a couple of things immediately jumped out at me. First, I noticed that two witnesses, Rebecca Hamilton and Joseph Townsend, had been called for both plaintiff and defense; plaintiff witnesses for Julia's bastardy suit and defense witnesses against Samuel's Trespass On The Case suit. I'm curious, but I don't feel that I can speculate on the reasons for this.

I researched some of the witnesses in this case, hoping to find clues that would guide me in my research into Samuel's ancestry. I didn't have much luck with many of the witnesses -- I think because some were young people at the time and I didn't have a census with names that I could use -- and none of them seemed to connect with my Brownings, but I did manage to find out some interesting things.

Timothy Titus and his son Uriah were called as witnesses in Samuel's Trespass on the Case suit. Timothy Titus was born around 1789 and died in late 1858/early 1859. His will lists Uriah as his son. Uriah was born around 1813 and would have been about 24 years old at the time of the case.

Julia Ann called James and Cyrus Rowland and Uriah Moore as witnesses in her case. Samuel called Philip Fulton Jr. as a witness in his case. James (b. 1805) and Cyrus Rowland were the sons of John Rowland and Rachel Engle. John and Rachel Rowland lived in Moorefield Township and were buried in the Rankin Cemetery there. Whether this means they have ties with the Rankin family (and two more of the witnesses, David and Sarah Rankin) is unknown.

Uriah Moore (b. 1814) was apprenticed with Henry Moore of Cadiz as a wheelwright at age 16. He worked there for three years (c1830-1833) before erecting his own shop in Moorefield Township, which was where Samuel and Julia Ann were living at the time of the case.

I discovered that the Rowland family and the Fulton family were related by marriage and the Moore family was soon to follow. James and Cyrus Rowland's brother William married Jane Fulton in 1820. Jane was one of the daughters of Philip Fulton. Uriah Moore married another of Philip Fulton's daughters, Mary Ann, in October of 1842. I also located the marriage of a James Moore to Elizabeth Rowland in Jan 1829. I don't know if James and Uriah are any relation, but the man who married James and Elizabeth was Philip Fulton.

Uriah was only 23 years old when he was called as a witness. James and Cyrus Rowland were in their late 20s and early 30s. I wonder how well they would have known 16 year old Julia Ann. While it's very possible that they knew Julia, I think it more likely that they knew James Beck and were called to testify to his character with the ladies.

What relation that Samuel or Julia had with the Rowland/Fulton/Moore families is (so far) unknown. I'll be looking into it more, that's for sure, and I'll definitely keep an eye out for these names during my continuing research.

I found a few proximity connections with the Browning name -- meaning people lived close to other people who had Browning connections -- but by far the most interesting but confusing aspect so far is that both of the witnesses that actually did connect with the Browning name connected in a most unususal fashion. As I said earlier, I'd hoped to find clues that would point me toward Samuel's hidden ancestry. I'd been excited about it since my initial glance at the case when I found it in a drawer in the Harrison County Genealogical Society. A set of names had jumped out at me then and got my blood racing and my heart pounding. Imagine my confusion, then, when I realized that the only names that rang those bells of recognition in my head ended up being witnesses…..for the defense???

Next time, I'll be exploring these witnesses!

---

Sources:

Historical Collections Of Harrison County, In The State of Ohio, With Lists Of The First Land-Owners, Early Marriages (to 1841), Will Records (to 1861), Burial Records Of The Early Settlements, and Numerous Genealogies. Charles A. Hanna. New York, 1900.

A Commemorative Biographical Record of the Counties of Harrison and Carroll, Ohio, containing Biographical Sketches of Prominent and Representative Citizens, And of Many of the Early Settled Families. J.H. Beers. Chicago, 1891.