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.

Browning v. Beck, Pt. 2 - Another Charge Is Added

Three months passed as Julia Ann Browning and her father Samuel waited for the next term of the Harrison County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas to resume. By mid-June of 1837 Julia was likely very busy taking care of her son Washington, now nearly three months old, and assisting her mother Margaret with daily household chores. Samuel had ample time to stew on the case and when the term finally did roll around he took the action of filing his own case against the father of Julia's son. His filing brought about the writing of a summons calling James Beck to appear before the court.

Of all the charges that Samuel could have chosen to levy against James Beck (Base Seduction being one; I saw references to it here and there amongst the subpeonas in the case files) it is of note that he settled on the charge of Trespass. I considered this a moment. The practical side of me understood that Samuel could use this to establish concrete reasons why Beck's actions had made financial burdens greater on his family and demand the court award him greater restitution. Still, a part of me rebelled. There were aspects of it that aroused my righteous indignation as a 21^st-century parent and equality-minded American. I felt introducing the idea of Trespass into the case made the vibe of the case change. Was the goal the proper dispensement of responsibility for the welfare of a child, or did Samuel have another motive? Did he consider Julia's ability to perform services for him of more importance than her meaning as his daughter? Was his anger and shame in her behavior showing?

I got my answers in a search on the legal definition of trespass in the 19th century. The search referenced Bouvier's Law Dictionary (http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm), published in 1856. It offered up information that clarified the practical aspects of the case as well as touch upon what I felt was the heart of the issue. I was reading through the definition when the term "Trespass On the Case" rang a bell. I checked and sure enough, the wordage in the summons calling James Beck to account in Samuel's suit was actually Trespass On The Case! I'd missed it entirely the first time because as you can see in the image, the words weren't capitalized and I'd made the assumption that the three words after "Trespass" were a qualifying statement instead of a title reference. Oops! I spent some more time getting an in-depth understanding of the legalese involved. I didn't want to miss anything else!

My first question was why Samuel didn't pursue Seduction as his primary charge. Surely, I thought, that would be the kind of charge to arouse the ire of the men -- all probably fathers of daughters -- that had been selected to the jury against Beck?

SEDUCTION. The offence of a man who abuses the simplicity and confidence of a woman to obtain by false promises what she ought not to grant.

2. The woman being particeps criminis, has no remedy for the mere seduction, nor is there, to the discredit of the law, a direct remedy in her parents. The seducer may be sued, though not directly or ostensibly for the seduction; but for the consequent inability to perform those services for which she was accountable to her master, or to her parent, who, for this purpose, is obliged to assume that less endearing relation; and if it cannot be proved that she filled that office, the action cannot be sustained.

The definition was quaint; antiquated and definitely discriminatory. No surprise there. What was clear, though, was why Samuel couldn't sue for Seduction and why he used the words he used in the statement he prepared for his suit against Beck (a statement featured in the next installment of this series.) A woman's parents (or master, i.e., husband or guardian) were required to take on the role of "employer" regardless of their love or affection for the woman in question and account for her worth in the form of the duties she was obliged to perform. Woe betide those who couldn't prove their daughter or wife or charge was a servant in some way!

Samuel's counsel, Dewey and Stanton, advised Samuel to seek a suit of Trespass. There were two different types of Trespass in Samuel's time -- remedy and tort. While today it appears that only one of the two exists (trespass is considered a tortious act, as it almost always carries with it the potential to obtain damages from the offense) in the 19^th century remedy trespass was distinguished from tortious trespass. The distinction seems blurry -- the one (tort, a wrongful act that results in injury) might not necessarily lead to the other (remedy, or damages.) The type of trespass that Samuel was encouraged to consider fell under the tort banner. This sort of Trespass is defined in Bouvier's as

…An unlawful act committed with violence…to the person, property or relative rights of another. Every felony includes a tres-pass, in common parlance, such acts are not in general considered as tres-passes, yet they subject the offender to an action of trespass after his conviction or acquittal.

2. There is another kind of trespass, which is committed without force, and is known by the name of trespass on the case. This is not generally known by the name of trespass. See Case.

As mentioned in the definition above, Samuel's case fell under the subordinate clause of the trespass law. I looked at its definition and followed the necessary links to get a well-rounded idea of what Samuel was doing.

TRESPASS ON THE CASE, practice. The technical name of an action, instituted for the recovery of damages caused by an injury unaccompanied with force, or where the damages sustained are only consequential. See Case.

2. For injuries to the relative rights, as for criminal conversation, seducing or harboring wives; debauching daughters, but in this case the daughter must live with her father as his servant, see Seduction. When the seduction takes place in the husband's or father's house, he may, at his election, have trespass on the case.

I bolded the relevant wording in the last definition, since Julia admitted James Beck had entered her bed, in her father's house. There's every indication Julia had wanted this to happen -- after all, he was in her house and her sister was there and she didn't scream or resist! Regardless of her intent, the law of the time allowed for the opportunity to remove a woman's share of mutual responsibility under the umbrella of women's simplicity. Trespass On the Case gave Samuel the legal right to have his own separate charge drawn up against James Beck regardless of his daughter's willingness or resistance. After reviewing all the definitions, the charge Samuel had levied -- Trespass On The Case -- was the one he had most cause to levy and the one most likely to grant him the outcome he desired. He'd likely been advised to do exactly that by his counsel.

Next time we'll see what Samuel had to say on the case he'd implemented against the man who gave him his first grandchild. Samuel made his statement of cause and submitted it to the court very soon after the warrant was issued and served for James Beck in the June Term, 1837.

Posts In This Series:

Pt 1 - The Case Is Introduced

Pt 2 - Another Charge Is Added

Pt 3 - Samuel's Statement of Trespass On The Case

Pt 4 - Famous By Association?

Pt 5 - State Your Name Please

Pt 6 - Witnesses For The Defense

Pt 7 - The Witnesses Wilson

Pt 8 - The Cases Are Resolved

Pt 9 - What A Web We Weave

Pt 10 - Another Famous Name?

(As an aside, it appears James was a bit of a rounder. I found another case from a different woman at nearly the same time, accusing Beck of bastardy as well! I meant to get a copy of it but for some reason when I returned home it was not in my pile of copies. I think I accidentally skipped over the pages. Ah well, next time! I highly recommend the Bouvier's Law Dictionary I referenced above for all your 19th century law term needs!

The Browning Series -- Part Three, or Julia Ann Browning and John Hoy

Before I examine the Browning vs. Beck case in any more detail, I should take the time to first introduce one of its major players -- Julia Ann Browning, the third child of Samuel Browning and Margaret Markee. This post, then, will be part of "The Browning Series," even though technically she's their third child and should wait for her time in the spotlight after her elder brother Elias. But ah well, the case I found in Ohio begs to be told.

(In case you're not aware, The Browning Series is the story of the thirteen children Samuel and Margaret Browning had between them and after Margaret's death, the two Samuel had with his second wife, a widow named Sarah Ann (Bell) Gaddis. I plan to feature each one of the fifteen children in a separate post and finally tie the family together with a discussion of their parents.)

Julia Ann Browning was born on 21 January 1820 in Cadiz Township in Harrison County, Ohio. By the time she was ten her family had moved to Moorefield Township, which is where they stayed until at least 1840 and where they were living at the time of her case against James Beck, the father of her illegitimate son, Washington. I won't go into any more details of this case right now, but will instead skip to the year 1843, when she marries for the first time.

Her choice for a husband was a man named John Hoy. I pause here for a moment to share a bit of what I know on the Hoy family. The Hoys became rather an important fixture in the lives of Samuel and Margaret. Two of their daughters -- Julia and Margaret -- married into the Hoy family. John's parents, Edward Hoy and his wife Elizabeth and their family (sons William, John, James, Thomas, Solomon, Joel, Joseph and Benjamin) immigrated to the United States from Elm, Cambridgeshire, England. On 17 August 1837 the Hoys landed in the New York harbor after setting sail on the Ship Superior from Liverpool.

John and Julia married on 21 May 1843 in Harrison County, Ohio. It took me a while to locate their marriage license because there was a mistake in the recording of it on the books. The Justice that married them -- John M. Brown -- made the error himself as he recorded it. He was so used to writing his own name that when he went to write their names he stopped halfway through Julia's, recording it as "Julia Ann Brown" instead of Browning. Only the body of the license shows that she was actually a Browning.

The couple lived in Harrison County for a few years but moved to Mill Township in Tuscarawas County by 1850, where they were living with Julia's younger sister Margaret, who'd recently married John's younger brother James. By that time they had three children -- William, Samuel and Josephine. I find it interesting that her son Washington is not living with her but is instead living with his grandparents. This seems to have been the case throughout his life. Actually, it seems to have been something Julia did a lot of.

I say this because sometime between 1851 and 1860 John and Julia moved to Crawford County, Illinois with the rest of the Brownings. It appears by all evidence that John Hoy had died by 1855, though, because he isn't found in the October 1855 Illinois state census and it appears Julia may have been one of the females aged aged 30 to 40 in Samuel Browning’s household in the state census that year. I've concluded from the rather scanty evidence that John Hoy had probably died by 1855. I haven't ever been able to locate his grave.

By 1860, Julia's married again -- she married James E. ‘Melton’ Legg, the son of Edward Legg and Anna White, in Crawford County on 7 June 1860. Though Julia and James Melton are enumerated with his five children from his previous marriage to Sarah Mills and with Julia’s nephew Elias Browning, her own surviving children from her marriage to John Hoy aren't with her! Instead, her two sons William and Samuel Hoy (her daughter Josephine had died) were shown in the household of her father and mother, Samuel and Margaret.

I can't help but wonder if she just chose a string of men who didn't want her brats in their houses, or if she made the choice to leave her children with her parents. Perhaps her parents thought she was flighty and irresponsible. Perhaps she was headstrong and stubborn and it was just easier for her to let them raise themselves. Or perhaps none of this is true and the censuses just caught them all during days where her kids were simply visiting. I don't know. I do know that Washington's tombstone doesn't say "Son of." It says, "Grandson of." That sounds to me like Samuel and Margaret did most of his raising.

Julia died in Crawford County on 28 October 1869. She's buried near the Browning family plot in the Wesley Chapel Cemetery in Montgomery Township in Crawford County, Illinois.

Coming up next, the case that probably shaped Julia's life more than she liked.....

Tombstone Tuesday - The Life and Death of Washington Browning

Tombstone Tuesday tonight is partially a post about a tombstone and partially a re-introduction to the case that is upfront in my mind since my return from Ohio yesterday.

If you'll recall, I've mentioned the Browning vs. Beck case once before (and if you don't recall, click on the case name and go read the post!) Quickly summarized, it was the case that helped me determine who Washington Browning (see left) was and where he fit into Samuel and Margaret's Browning family. Washington was their grandson, the illegitimate son of their eldest daughter Julia Ann. Julia was sixteen when she gave birth. The man she accused of being Washington's father was a next-door neighbor named James Beck.

The case ended with a guilty verdict rendered upon James, and he was required to pay child support for a term of five years. I ended my first post by wondering whether or not James followed through on his stated intention to take the case up on appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. During my research this last week I thoroughly perused the surviving Supreme Court records of the time for Harrison County (I looked from 1834-1854) and I think I can safely say that he didn't appear to have done so. I'm satisfied. My years-long wondering can be placed aside permanently.

What interests me now is not that, but the rest of the case. You see, I spent most of Friday in the courthouse in Cadiz, the county seat of Harrison County. I found a few interesting tidbits but nothing that really jumped out and shouted at me. By 4 pm it had been a long day and I was contemplating going out to visit the cemetery where Washington's aunt was buried, but thought to grab a bite to eat at a tiny cafe near the square before doing so. While eating, I happened to overhear some older ladies chatting and asked one of them how to pronounce the name of the town....was it Cah-deez, or Caddis? I discovered it was Caddis. One of the ladies asked me where I was from, since my accent was obviously Texan. I mentioned I was there to do some genealogical research and another of the ladies swiveled in her seat and pointed across the cafe to the only other people there. She said, "Then you'll want to see her. She's the president of the Harrison County Genealogical Society!"

Serendipity!

Long story short, Sue (the president) told me she'd meet me at the Society building and let me in. She ended up staying there for 4 hours, going down to the basement to pull the old records and making copies and doing research right alongside me. Both of us got goosebumps when we found some names that made me do my Happy Dance. As we worked she told me stories of how some old records were lost. The courthouse dumped many of them in a dumpster because of space constraints and the Society rescued what they could. She also told me that in the 80's some old marriage permission slips had been photocopied (one of those being the license of Samuel and Margaret, thank goodness!) but the originals went missing soon thereafter. One of those photocopied and now missing ones is so faint as to be illegible, though the name John Browning can be seen!!!!!

Anyway, I joined the Society that night and I can only hope that if and when I can help someone else out, I'll be able to pay it forward like Sue did for me. She was a true gem.

When she brought the files on the Browning vs. Beck case up from the Society basement for me, I got so excited. I ended up copying the entire file though it cost me a small fortune! These are the papers I intend to analyze in the coming week (or so.) Talk about fascinating......

'Til next time, then!

(Not At All) Wordless Wednesday -- Browning vs. Beck (1837)

The trial I've mentioned in a couple of recent postings (see the post below about my first trip to OH!) will be my focus this evening. This trial was recorded in two parts of the October AD 1837 term of the Harrison County OH Common Pleas court -- on Saturday, October 28th (Vol. D, pg. 131) and Monday, October 30th (Vol. D, pg. 132.) . It was officially called "Samuel Browning vs. James Beck" on page 131.

This case was originally located by a researcher I'd hired years ago.

A transcription of the case (which is at left) follows:

OCTOBER TERM AD 1837
Saturday, October 28th, AD 1837

SAMUEL BROWNING vs. JAMES BECK:

CASE: This day came the parties by their counsel, and being at issue the following jury was called and came to wit; Zadoc Bliss, James D. Anderson, George Baker, Silvanus Lamb, Elzy Chansy, Peter Barger, Samuel Boland, Alexander Beall, John Layport, Robert Guinea, Ephraim Johnson, William Barrett, who were duly impannelled, tried, sworn and affirmed to try the aforesaid issue between the said Samuel Browning Plaintiff and James Beck Defendant, and after hearing the evidence adduced and arguments of counsel, as well on part of the plaintiff as the defendant do on their respective oaths & affirmations, say that the said James Beck is guilty in manner & form as the said Samuel Browning above in his declarations hath complained against him, and that they assess the damages the plaintiff hath sustained by reason of the promises at the sum of one hundred dollars.

The court adjourned until 8 o'clock on Monday morning.

At this point in the case, the only reason given for the assessment of $100 against James Beck is "damages" of unknown origin and the details of his guilt are not explained. It appears that this issue was brought up before the 28th, though -- something I intend to look up in the Common Pleas Journal again on my next trip to see if it was!

A page later, on 132, we find the Court re-adjourning. Now the case is entitled "State of Ohio on complaint of Samuel (Samuel is crossed out) Julia Ann Browning vs. James Beck."

Julia? In October of 1837, Samuel's daughter Julia was a single girl, 17 years old. She was Samuel and Margaret's firstborn daughter and was not married until 1843, a full six years after the date of the trial. Why would she be involved? I read the first words of the case and everything suddenly made sense.

OCTOBER TERM AD 1837
Monday morning, 8 o'clock, October 30th, AD 1837
Court met pursuant to adjournment present the same judges as on Saturday the 28th of October instant.

STATE OF OHIO on complaint of (SAMUEL) JULIA ANN BROWNING , vs. JAMES BECK:
BASTARDY: This day came the parties by their attorneys, and the motion for a new trial in this case having been submitted to the court, and the court being duly advised in the premises, do overrule said motion. And the court do thereupon adjudge the said James Beck the Defendant to be the reputed Father of said bastard child and 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. And that the said James Beck give Bonds to the Clerk of this court with security to be by him approved conditioned for the performance of the aforesaid orders, and that he stand committed to the Jail of the County until such security be given.
The Defendant by his counsel thereupon gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court.

A child support case! Ah ha!!!! A tumbler clicked into place and the identity of a mystery grandson named Washington living with Samuel and Margaret in the 1850 census of Harrison County was finally solved. I'd first thought he was another child of Samuel and Margaret's, possibly a twin brother of Ezra C. 'Zera' Browning. Later -- when I found Washington's gravestone with the inscription, "Grandson of S&M Browning" -- I wondered which child of Samuel and Margaret was his parent. At first I assumed (yes, I know, silly me!) that Wash was a son of one of the elder sons of Samuel and Margaret because his last name was Browning! I calculated Wash's age and looked at all the marriage dates of the boys but found nothing that would match or make any sense as to why Wash was with Samuel and Margaret and not his parents. I recall considering Julia briefly but without any seriousness.

I learned my lesson when this case was located.

I have been told that in the 1830's, the state of Ohio encouraged mothers of illegitimate children to come forth and prosecute the fathers of their children. Apparently the state provided some form of support for these children but if -- and only if -- the fathers could not be found and made to support their offspring themselves. I do not know how accurate this information is, but it certainly makes the reason for this prosecution a little bit clearer.

I began to do some research on the defendant in the case, James Beck -- the man accused and found guilty of being Washington's father (though how they determined this back then I have no idea!) James had to pay an upfront fee of $54 plus a sum to the court of $.75 a week for support for either five years or until Washington died. He also had to pay court costs. Added up, this amounts to well over $154 for the trial and for the judgement! That was a lot of money in 1837.

Note the last sentence: "The Defendant by his counsel thereupon gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court." It is this sentence which interests me so much and is a focus of my further research during my upcoming trip. I'd like to know if James pursued it.

I located a James Beck living four doors down from Samuel and Margaret in Moorefield Township in Harrison County in 1830. This James had one male under 5, one male 20-29, one male 70-79, one female 15-19 and one female 20-29. I'm not sure if this is the correct James Beck family and of course we can't determine from this list whether or not this is a 20-something James with a wife, son, father and sister or sister-in-law living with him or not. No James Beck is found in 1840.

Washington's mother Julia was an...interesting....woman in her own right. She was obviously sneaking off as a teenager and whatever the circumstances were, she became pregnant while still unmarried. She either gave Washington to her parents or they required her to leave him with them (though to date, no adoption/guardianship papers have been found) for in 1850 when Washington is enumerated with Samuel and Margaret, Julia is in neighboring Tuscarawas County living with her husband John Hoy, their two children Samuel and William, and is pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine. Julia and John were rooming with Julia's sister Margaret and her husband, John's younger brother James Hoy.

By 1855, Julia had moved to Crawford County, Illinois. She was living with her parents and her husband John is nowhere to be found. Her sons Samuel and William Hoy are with her, but her daughter Josephine and husband John were dead. By 1860 Julia had married again in Crawford County to James E. Melton Legg and they are living with Melton's four children, but Julia's two older sons William and Samuel Hoy are once again living with their grandparents.

In 1869, Julia dies. She is buried in the Wesley Chapel Cemetery in Montgomery Township, Crawford County, Illinois. Her tombstone is to the left. She rests next to her parents, siblings, and one other; her illegitimate son, Washington.

The subject of the case -- Washington -- was born on 24 March 1837. Julia was 16. Washington lived with his grandparents his whole life as far as I have been able to ascertain.

Washington moved to Crawford County, Illinois with Samuel and Margaret and died on 4 June 1854 at the age of 18, less than a month before his aunt Sarah Ann Browning. Sarah died on 1 July 1854. There was an outbreak of yellow fever between the years of 1852-1854 in Crawford County. Perhaps Washington and his aunt Sarah were two of its victims.

Genealogy Happy Dance, aka "In Search Of......Margaret, Part II"

I told the first part of the story below and you definitely need to read that first. So go, go go.....

You're back? Okay! So now.....The Rest Of The Story.

Er, sorta.

Anywayyyy.......after finding Margaret's name in the Wilkin cemetery plat, other research tasks spurred by its discovery caught my attention. Realizing that Samuel likely wasn't buried next to Margaret had disappointed me even through my giddiness at finding her on the Wilkin Cemetery plat records. To help ease the disappointment I set about trying to find out who Olen was. It didn't take long to learn that little Olen (1853-1856) was the son of Samuel and Margaret's ninth child Asbury Taylor Browning and his wife Minerva Corderman.

The discovery did inspire me to begin tracing all of Samuel and Margaret's children, one by one, in the hopes that by doing so I would learn more about who Olen had been. This was when I finally learned the benefits of researching one family exclusively. By the time I'd been at it for a while I began to feel like I "knew" each and every one of them like the back of my hand. That familiarity is essential to good work and without it you may miss vital pieces of information that would have no context otherwise. Never let anyone tell you that hunches borne of familiarity aren't valuable tools. Follow them.

Anyway, the time and opportunity for a visit to Crawford County finally came. I flew down to Crawford County in July 2001 with Patricia O'Connor, a cousin that I'd been working with since the late 1990s. She and I had never physically met but we'd formed a solid bond during our researches. I was so excited to finally get to meet her! Her ancestor, John Wesley Browning (b. c1837) was Samuel and Margaret's 11th child while my ancestor, James (b. 1815) was their first.

Pat and I spent nearly a week in Robinson -- the county seat of Crawford County -- and during that week we got together with Cliff and Linda and took a trip out to the Wilkin Cemetery. They led me to Margaret's grave -- what there was of it -- and during the obligatory picture-taking/wandering the cemetery, a man drove up and got out and eventually approached us.

He introduced himself as the cemetery caretaker and when he noticed we were staring at Margaret's grave he pointed to the giant overgrown stump a few rows forward from Margaret's stone. "See that stump?" he said. "You want to know what probably happened to that grave there? About 50 years ago or so that was a huge tree that got hit by a stroke of lightning. Sent it crashing down into the middle of the cemetery and from what I hear, a lot of the stones in its path got busted up pretty good."

My heart sank to the pit of my stomach and everyone else looked like they were feeling the same. We thanked the caretaker and after a few more minutes we decided to take the last pictures and go ahead and go. It was July, the Illinois humidity was brutal, and everyone else was wilting. We all started back to the van to start the air conditioning but I was dragging my feet. I just kept thinking that there was something I was missing.

I turned back and told them to give me five minutes. They gladly cooled down in the van while I went back up to the cemetery, thinking to myself about what would have happened in the aftermath of that damaging lightning strike. Tombstones scattered everywhere, tree limbs all over. I noticed a large number of big branches thrown over the barbed wire fence around the perimeter and it started me wondering if they'd carted the stones towards the perimeter as well. I walked the perimeter and looked through all the underbrush with no results. I had about given up in frustration when something drew me back toward the stump in the middle. I looked at it a moment and then thought, "Well....surely they'd have propped the stones against the stump?"

Except there really wasn't too much of a stump anymore, just the remnants of one. So I bent down and started digging through the undergrowth -- which incidentally I recognized as poison oak! -- with my bare hands. I saw a flash of white and grabbed it, pulling it out into the light. Emblazoned on the face was a single word.

MARGARET,

and below it, faintly:

Wife of S Browning
died January 19

I don't really remember it but I know I let out a yell of triumph because Cliff came running out of the van. He said later he thought I'd been snakebit. I laid it down, shaking, and reached in again to pull out another part of the stone. This one showed a hand pointing to heaven. I laid it next to the part of the stone bearing her name and the two pieces fit like a glove.

I had to sit down then because I was weak, laughing and grinning and shaking like an idiot. It was easily the most exhilarating genealogical experience of my life.

To this day I recall the feeling I had standing in that cemetery and I can't help but wonder if Margaret herself wasn't calling me over to where her stone had fallen. Having been propped against the stump, had it toppled into the hole left as the tree decayed? It was the only logical explanation, of course. But the feeling of serendipity remains.

After a time I felt able to stand and the discoing commenced in earnest. All the cousins there were discoing that day! After we'd calmed a bit we lifted the stones and placed them on top of what was left in the ground. A perfect fit! I stood back and took the picture on the left. Cliff told me then that he was going to repair the stone. It took him a couple of years but he did it. The stone as it appears today is shown on the right.

Of course we still hadn't found Olen's stone. Margaret's stone had been busted into three pieces. At the time it seemed reasonable to assume that Olen's stone, sitting to the right of Margaret's like it had been, had caught the worst of the tree as it fell. I believed we'd never find it.

But that's.......not quite the the Rest Of The Story.

Part III, coming right up!

Genealogy Happy Dance, aka "In Search Of......Margaret, Part I"

I'm a little late in getting around to the Genealogy Happy Dance post I've been reading about in a number of genealogy blogs, but I figure it's better late than never. I've had so many occasions to jig and rhumba (or do my very best disco!) during my 16 years at this hobby, but the most intensely happy moment by far was when I located the gravestone of my Browning matriarch -- my 4th g-grandmother -- Margaret (Markee) Browning. It's been years since this happened, but just doing the writing to tell the tale makes the grin start creeping onto my face and my toe start tapping.

Get comfortable, people. This is a long story.

My 4th g-grandparents, Samuel Browning and Margaret Markee, married in 1815 in Harrison County, Ohio. They were both little more than children -- Samuel was about 18 and had just returned from serving six months in the War of 1812 with Captain Baruch Dickerson's Company, a part of Lieutenant-Colonel William Cotgreve/Colgrove's Second Regiment of Ohio Militia out of Jefferson County. Margaret, the daughter of James Markee (who was the son of James Markey and Amey Trigg of Taynton, Gloucester, England) was barely 15. They were married for 40 years and had 13 children during their marriage, all of whom lived to adulthood. They also took care of their daughter Julia's illegitimate son, Washington, throughout the term of his life. (Washington's story is an interesting one, which I'll blog about at another time.)

They lived 35 years together in Harrison County (moving from Cadiz Twn to Athens Twn to Moorefield Twn) before deciding around 1851 to move on to Crawford County, Illinois. Ten of their thirteen children and their grandson went with them. Samuel and Margaret's eldest son James and his wife Jane Nevitt had moved to Crawford County a few years before that, along with a few of Margaret's Markee nephews. At this point in my research, though, I wasn't aware that Samuel and Margaret had moved to Crawford County and I certainly didn't know that any of the Markees had! I only knew that MY ancestor James had. Not knowing that they'd went to Illinois turned out to be pretty important.

When I first began my genealogical research, I located Samuel and Margaret mentioned on page 535 of J.H. Beer's book, A Commemorative Biographical Record of the counties of Harrison and Carroll. The sketch was of John C. McConnell, who'd married Samuel and Margaret's daughter Rachel. (Rachel was the only one of the Brownings to remain in Harrison County her entire life -- the others moved to Indiana and Kansas -- but as I said before, I didn't realize that at the time. I thought only James had moved to Illinois!) Anyway, the biography spoke briefly of the Browning family and mentioned, as follows: "In 1864 he [Samuel] died, and his remains were laid beside those of his wife, who died in 1855." This small phrase and its implications sent me on a wild goose chase that lasted years and painfully highlighted my fledgling genealogical talents.

I looked all over Harrison County for the location of Samuel and Margaret's gravesite. I spent a very frustrating 6-9 months on the search and when I kept coming up empty I got sidetracked onto other research tasks with other families and decided to lay the burial mystery aside for a while. You must understand -- this was in the years before I learned to concentrate on one family instead of hopping about from family to family. Like I said, fledgling.

A few years later I came back to the Brownings -- to stay, it turns out -- armed with the then-new information that Samuel and Margaret had emigrated to Crawford County, Illinois not long after their son James. I looked at the phrase with new eyes. I finally realized that the phrase had only implied they'd been buried in Harrison County! Since all the other information in the passage about Samuel and Margaret had been true (their children, Samuel's 1812 service, their religious orientation, etc) I wondered if Beers could have been in error about their burial. But in looking at it, Beers never mentioned that they'd been buried in Harrison County. He simply said they were buried together. I thought perhaps they'd been buried in Crawford County instead. But I wondered anew.....where?

I started looking and after some amount of diligence, finally found a hit! Margaret! Buried in the Wilkin Cemetery in Licking Twn. Although I held off on the full-press disco because there wasn't a Samuel listed, I did stand up and allow myself a jig or three. I was pretty happy because next to Margaret there was another Browning listed, one I'd never heard of. A child named Olen B., a son of Asbury Taylor Browning (Samuel and Margaret's ninth child) and his wife Minerva Corderman.

My happiness was tempered by the fact that -- being in Texas -- I couldn't just run out the door and visit the cemetery like every bone in my body was dying to do. I did the next best thing and called a cousin that lived in the county -- one I'd located between my first search and the one that found Margaret -- and dispatched her posthaste to the cemetery to find the stone. She came back emptyhanded. We were crushed.

But my cousin Linda wasn't easily daunted. She started asking around, conferring with the most prominent historian/genealogists in the county. What she found was hugely exciting. Apparently an old cemetery plat existed for the Wilkin, and Margaret and Olen (though not Samuel) were on it! She got a copy made after some finagling and she and her husband Cliff -- who is a treasure, believe me! -- went back to the Wilkin and used the plat to find the position of Margaret's plot. They went armed with a camera.

Look over to the left for what they found. No name there at all, and merely the hint of a death date -- 1856. Hm, I thought, Beers was a little off after all. According to the plat, Olen was supposed to be buried to her right when you faced her stone but there wasn't a stone in sight.

There was little surprise that at their first run of the cemetery, Cliff and Linda had missed her. Without the plat, they'd surely have continued to do so.

As Paul Harvey likes to say, stay tuned, for "in a minute, you're going to hear...the Rest Of The Story."

(If you'd like to read further, go to Part II of this story here, then come back and read Part III of this story!)