Browning v. Beck, Pt 3 - Samuel and his Statement of “Trespass On The Case”

When I last left off, we were waiting to see what Samuel would say in the statement he submitted to the Harrison County (OH) Court of Common Pleas on the case he'd implemented against James Beck, the man who had given him his first grandchild by "debauching" his eldest daughter, Julia Ann. 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.

When I read through the document I ran the gamut of emotions from fascination to frustration. My first "Well, rats!" moment came when I realized it wasn't a statement written in Samuel's own hand, or wasn't even written by someone else in a personal but dictated style. I would have really liked that! No such luck. It was just your run of the mill statement coded in the sort of obtuse legal wordage that's confusing enough to make you forget what the beginning of the sentence was by the time you get to the end! But then I reminded myself to stop whining. The fact that I had the document at all was simply serendipity.

Before Samuel submitted his statement he named a few initial witnesses he wished would testify on his behalf. The initial list was:

SAMUEL BROWNING vs. JAMES BECK
WITNESSES FOR PLAINTIFF

David Rankin &
Sarah his wife
Timothy Titus
David Cunningham
John Mitchell

I'm pretty sure that it was common practice then (as now) to transcribe the testimony during trial, but if this was done in this case any record of such transcription is gone. That's disappointing; I would've loved to have such records. It would've been quite interesting to read what any of these people would have said in court to convince a jury that they knew anything at all about the monetary value of Julia Ann's daughterly services.

I did some preliminary research on these witnesses. I was curious to learn whether they were any relation to Samuel. I didn't turn up much and most of what I did find came from Charles Hanna's Historical Collections of Harrison County.* I did find all of these men on the 1840 Harrison County census, taken three years after the trial. Not all lived in the same township as Samuel did. In the census of Moorefield Township, David Cunningham lived 18 houses down from Samuel and David Rankin lived 21 houses down. All are enumerated on page 93 of the census. Timothy Titus and John Mitchell are living five houses apart from each other in Cadiz Township. Both men are enumerated on page 35 of the census. David Rankin was the son of Thomas Rankin and Nancy Foreman and was born around 1790. He married Sarah Porter on 20 Mar 1819 in Harrison County. The will of Timothy Titus, also found in Harrison County, was dated June 2, 1857; date of probate, Jan. 19, 1859; wife, name not given; children, Uriah, William L., Samuel, Jonathan, Eliza, Timothy, Jane Irons, Susanna Middleton, and Mary Ann Wallace.

So far, none of the names I've been presented with ring any bells with what I know of Samuel and his family. This does change, however, as more witnesses are named. But that will come when the witnesses are served.

Samuel then submitted his statement to the court. It reads as follows:

State of Ohio

Harrison County Sct

Samuel Browning v James Beck

Common Pleas (after?) June 1837

Samuel Browning complains of James Beck of a plea of Trespass On The Case for that whereas the said James Beck contriving and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure the said Samuel and to deprive him of the service and assistance of Julia Ann Browning the daughter and servant of him the said Samuel heretofore to wit in the first day of July in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred thirty six (row) divers other days and times between that day and the day of the commencement of this trial at Harrison County debauched and carnally knew the said Julia Ann Browning then and there and from thence for a long space of time to wit hitherto being the daughter and servant of the said Samuel, whereby the said Julia Ann became pregnant and sick with child, and so remained and continued for a long space of time to wit for the space of nine months then next following, at the expiration whereof to wit on the twenty fourth day of March in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and thirty seven at Harrison County aforesaid, she the said Julia Ann was delivered of a child, with which she was so pregnant as aforesaid, to wit at Harrison County aforesaid; by means of which said

(Pg 2) several promises she the said Julia Ann for a long space of time to wit from the day and year first above mentioned hitherto became and was unable to do and perform the necessary affairs and business of the said Samuel Browning, so being her father and master as aforesaid, and thereby, he the said Samuel during all that time lost and was deprived of the service of his said daughter and servant to wit at Harrison County aforesaid; and also by means of the said several promises he the said Samuel was forced and obliged to and did necessarily pay, lay out, and expend divers sums of money in the whole amounting to a large sum of money to wit the sum of Five thousand dollars in and about; the nursing and taking care of the said Julia Ann his said daughter and servant, and in and about the delivery of the said child to wit at Harrison County aforesaid, to the damage of the said Samuel of one thousand dollars and therefore he brings suit.

Dewey & Stanton

attys for Pltff

I was frustrated at the repetitive "to wits" and "aforesaids" that distracted me from the meat of the statement but after I weeded those out some of the wordage made me chuckle. I shook my head a few times, too. I recalled that Julia had said in her testimony (see this post for that) that she and James Beck had been together sometime in July but that she was unsure of the date, and that she had only been with him the once. Samuel is a little more specific, stating not only that he knew the date his daughter had been with Beck (1 July) but that there had been more than the one time Julia and James would admit to. Samuel accuses Beck of visiting his daughter in the carnal sense more than once. I'm curious; did Samuel know this to be true or did he merely suspect it? Did Julia admit it privately but not publicly? Or, as I suspect, did Samuel dress up the facts to make his case sound more like seduction and less like something that Julia Ann willingly participated in?

On my initial read of the last words of the statement I found myself thinking, "So, Samuel would have us believe that in the year that had transpired since Julia became pregnant (the nine months of Julia's pregnancy and the three months since), he'd spent five thousand dollars for her and the child? Oh, come on!" I really found it hard to believe Samuel even had that kind of money, much less that he'd spent it on only one of his children. I also wondered why -- if it really was true -- that he'd be satisfied settling for damages amounting to a paltry one thousand dollars.

Then I took another, harder look at the document. Is is just me, or did someone change the amount? I swear that looks like the wide sweep of a capital "O" underneath the "F" of the five. I wonder who decided to change that? The lawyers? Samuel?

It seems like embellishment to me. Or maybe, just maybe, a father's anger showing through. Talk about a glimpse into Samuel's personality!

Next time, subpeonas are issued and the trial begins.

((*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.))

One Lovely Blog Award

Kay B at Kay B's Place left me a comment today letting me know that she chose me to receive an award for having “One Lovely Blog.” I was most honored. I've always enjoyed reading Kay's Blog. Thanks for the shout-out, Kay!

I'll use Kay's words here and paste the following: "I’d like to pass “One Lovely Blog Award” on to seven blogs and their authors. When you receive yours we hope you will take the time to read some new blogs or revisit some of your favorites. Then the instructions are simple - just nominate 7 other blogs. So, here are few other blogs I read that I’d like to nominate because of the lovely research and ideas."

So let's see........only seven? Goodness!

1) Photo-Sleuth. Wow, can this man research or what? He's like the Sherlock Holmes of genealogy. If I could pay attention to half the stuff he can I'd probably have my Brownings figured out by now.

2) Attic Treasures. I always get excited when I see an update here. What a great bunch of stories!

3) Lineage Keeper. Already the Logie family feels as human as my Brownings do to me. I love the letters and the journals and the "Logie-isms"! It's a testament to the storytelling talent of the author.

4) The Research Journal. This is a great blog about some very interesting Portuguese Hawaiian families. Very well documented as well as told.

5) Experiences of an English Soldier. Mr. Lamin tells an absolutely fascinating tale that's now deservedly been made into a book! Harry is a fixture in my reading.

6) Conversations With Ancestors Past. I enjoy coming here on update days and being able to just sink right into the stories, nodding my head as I go along. A very talented blogger.

7) Midwestern Microhistory. I love this blog. I'm a midwestern girl and I've found many absolutely great little gems of research help here. I never miss an update.

All of you are great!

Wordless Wednesday - Amanda Jane (Garrard) Hammack

Tombstone Tuesday - Matthew Starbuck (1830-1902)

The pictures in this post* are of the headstone of Matthew Starbuck, who was born in Stokes County, North Carolina, on 11 Apr 1830.

Matthew was the son of William Starbuck and Mary Hester. He married Jane Fulp (daughter of Franklin Fulp) and the couple moved from North Carolina to Indiana before finally settling in Cumberland County, Illinois in the early 1860's. Matthew joined up in the Civil War and served in Company A of the 5th IL Cavalry. He and Jane had nine living children before Jane's death in 1866.

Meanwhile, by 1859 Asbury Taylor Browning and his wife Minerva Corderman (the daughter of David Corderman and Sarah Viola Barron) had also moved to Cumberland County with their three living children -- Charles, Sarah and Emma. Asbury also joined up for service in the Civil War and served in the same company that Matthew Starbuck did. Alas, Asbury died in Arkansas of smallpox in 1862, leaving Minerva a widow.

I can't say for certain but it might be safe to assume that Matthew got to know Minerva and her children because of his acquaintanceship with Asbury before the latter's death. Perhaps the two men were even friends. In late December of 1867 (a little over a year after the death of his first wife) Matthew and Minerva married.

In the early spring of 1867 Minerva had applied for a widow's pension for herself and a minor's pension for her children. By 1868, however, she and Matthew Starbuck had been married so she applied for and received guardianship papers as well.

(It seems strange that Minerva -- their mother! -- would need to obtain guardianship papers. I'm curious why this is so. Since she was married again, did she think she needed a paper saying SHE was guardian of their persons and properties and not her new husband? Comments or thoughts would be welcome.)

Matthew and Minerva had one child of their own -- David Clinton Starbuck, born 1871 -- before Minerva died in 1873. Matthew married one more time, to Ellen Cook around the year 1875 or so. (I don't know the dates for sure since Cumberland County records from 1843-1885 were lost in a fire.) Matthew then moved to Benton County, Arkansas and lived out the rest of his days there. He died in 1902 and is buried in the Gamble Cemetery in Centerton in Benton County.

(*The headstone photos came from a great site called Cindy Marcell's Family Cemeteries. It's located at http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~marcell/CEMETERIES.html)

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!

Tombstone Tuesday - Samuel Browning Hoy and Emily Ellen McCarter

These are the tombstones of Samuel Browning Hoy and his wife, Emily Ellen McCarter.

Samuel was the son of John Hoy and Julia Ann Browning. He was born on 7 July 1848 in Harrison County, Ohio and died on 4 April 1931 in Flat Rock in Montgomery Township in Crawford County, Illinois.

Emily was the daughter of Samuel G. McCarter and Polly Ann Cannon. She was born on 5 July 1851 in Crawford County, Illinois and died on 2 Feb 1920 in Flat Rock. She and her husband are buried in the Robinson New Cemetery in Robinson, Crawford County, Illinois.

Samuel and Emily married in Crawford County on 11 Sept 1875.

More to come on Samuel -- he was an interesting man. In the meantime, his mother's case continues below......

Browning v. Beck, Pt. 1 - The Case Is Introduced

In studying the documentation I've procured for the case, I've discovered more than one charge was levied by the Brownings against the defendant, James Beck. The first was Julia Ann Browning vs. James Beck; the second, Samuel Browning vs. James Beck. The two cases were conducted simultaneously. I'll be approaching the case in as much chronological order as I'm able to pull from the case files. But first things first. We can't have any case at all without the mitigating circumstances!

Julia Ann Browning, the eldest daughter of Samuel Browning and Margaret Markee, gave birth to a son she named Washington -- very likely in her home, and possibly in the very bed she slept in -- in Moorefield Township in Harrison County, Ohio, on 24 March 1837. She was a 16-yr old teenager at the time of Washington's birth. At around the same time, Julia's mother Margaret, aged 36, was likely either pregnant with her eleventh child, John Wesley Francis Browning, or had just given birth to him.

Using what scanty evidence I've been able to pull from the entirety of the case, Julia suffered from morning sickness during her pregnancy and might have been bed sick after the birth. Her father's testimony also seems to support this. Four days after the birth Julia was interviewed -- apparently in her bed in her home -- by a justice and, oddly, by James Beck himself! This sort of thing isn't a common practice today and occurs only in the rare cases that a defendant represents himself in court, but apparently having the defendant question the accuser was a legitimate and acceptable practice in 1837. But more about that in due time.

Three days after Washington's birth Samuel and Julia Ann went to see Samuel Skinner, a Justice of the Peace in Harrison County. Julia began the case by filing an affidavit with the Court of Common Pleas claiming a charge of Bastardy against James Beck. I don't suspect they saw any reason to file the case before Washington's birth because there was always the possibility of a stillbirth or the death of Julia herself. The affidavit is as follows:

THE STATE OF OHIO HARRISON COUNTY

Personally came before me Samuel Skinner one of the Justices of the peace in and for said county Julia Ann --- Browning an unmarried woman of Moorefield Township in said county and made solemn oath that on the 24th day of March AD 1837 she was delivered of a bastard child and that James Beck is the father of said child.

Julia Ann (Her mark) Browning

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of March AD 1837

Samuel Skinner

Justice of the Peace

Later that day (27 March) Justice of the Peace Skinner issued a warrant for James Beck to Jno. (John or Jonathan) H. Beatty, the constable of Harrison County. I don't have a copy of the actual warrant that James was issued but the following mentions the issuance of one. This document was signed on 7 June but was obviously referring to the day in March when the warrant had been issued. According to Justice Skinner's oath, the constable served the warrant at a cost of 20 cents and 60 cents for mileage. Oh, I found that detail very amusing -- they charged mileage! I didn't realize horses had an odometer!

THE STATE OF OHIO vs. JAMES BECK

1837. March 27th on the affidavit of Julia Ann Browning an unmarried woman resident in the County of Harrison setting forth that she has been delivered of a bastard child and that James Beck is the father of said child. Same day warrant issued to Jno H. Beatty constable, warrant returned endorsed March 27th 1837 served by taking the defendant forthwith before Justice mileage 60 cents service 20 cents. Jno H. Beatty Const.

Whereupon on the 28th day of March AD 1837 the said Julia Ann Browning being duly sworn I proceeded to examine her, touching the cause of her complaint in the presence of said James Beck, and the said James Beck refusing to pay the said Julia Ann Browning to her satisfaction, it is ordered and adjudged that the said James Beck enter into recognizance with sufficient security in the sum of three hundred dollars for his appearance on the first day of the next term of the court of common pleas for said county to answer said complaint and be further dealt with according to law, and the said James Beck with Joseph Townsend as his security entered into such recognizance according to order.

The State of Ohio Harrison County

I do certify the above to be a true copy of the proceedings had in the above cause before me Given under my hand and seal this 7th day of June AD 1837

Samuel Skinner (Seal)

James refused to pay whatever monies Julia had requested of him and, although it does not specifically state, obviously declared himself not guilty of the charges against him. The case was therefore designated for trial on the first day of the next term of court, which was the October 1837 term.

The next day (28 March) was a flurry of activity. A recording of the proceedings was duly entered into the Common Pleas Journal D. At this point James had chosen Edward Clifford as his surety. Edward surrendered him to the court and a man named Joseph Townsend took over, entering with James into an agreement of recognizance with the court. This consisted of two documents; the order for recognizance (attached to the warrant, see above) and the conditions of the recognizance (found below). I also found some confusion with the exact sum of the recognizance. The recording in the Common Pleas Journal states $200, but all other documents -- including the actual order of recognizance itself -- clearly state $300. I suspect that this was an error in transcription on the clerk's part during the Journal recording. The first document was what was entered in the Common Pleas Journal:

Bastardy. This day came the parties by their attorneys and on motion to the court by the complainants counsel, it is ordered that this cause stand continued to the next Term of this Court. And thereupon Edward Clifford the surety of the said James Beck surrendered the said James Beck in open court. And on motion to court it is ordered that the said James Beck enter into recognizance with Joseph Townsend as security approved by the court in the sum of Two hundred dollars. Conditioned for the appearance of the said James Beck at the next term of this court on the first day of the Term to answer unto said complaint. and thereupon the said James Beck & Joseph Townsend personally appeared in open court and acknowledged themselves indebted to the State of Ohio in the sum of two hundred dollars to be levied of their goods, chattels, lands and tenements if default be made in the following condition to wit, the condition of this recognizance is such that if the aforebound James Beck shall personally appear at the next term of this court on the first day of the term and answer unto said complaint for Bastardy, abide the order and judgement of the court thereon and not depart without the leave of the court then this recognizance to be void and of none effect, otherwise to remain in full force & virtue.

And this was the actual order of recognizance:

The State of Ohio Harrison County

Be it remembered that on the 28th day of March AD 1837 James Beck & Joseph Townsend personally appeared before me Samuel Skinner on of the Justices of the peace in and for the county aforesaid and jointly and severally acknowledged to owe the state of Ohio for the use and benefit of the Township of Moorefield in said County of Harrison the sum of three hundred dollars to be levied of their goods and chattles lands and tenements for the use and benefit aforesaid if default be made in the condition following to wit, the condition of this recognizance is such that if the above bound James Beck shall personally be and appears before the court of common pleas next to be holden within and for said County of Harrison on the first day of the term, then and there to answer unto a complaint of Bastardy made by Julia Ann Browning against him, and abide the order of said court thereon, then this recognizance shall be void: otherwise to be in full force and virtue.

James Beck

Joseph Townsend

Taken and acknowledged before me the the 28th day of March AD 1837

Julia Ann (well, Samuel, but I assume as his daughter she would be represented by the same) had taken Dewey & Stanton as her counsel; James chose Jno. M. Goodinow.

The last item of business on 28 March was by far of the most interest to me. This was an interview conducted with Julia Ann and it took Justice Samuel Skinner and James Beck over to visit at Julia Ann's house. The transcription of the interview is as follows:

STATE OF OHIO VS JAMES BECK

Complaint Bastardy

The examination of Juliann Browning an unmarried woman, resident in the County of Harrison upon her complaint of bastardy against James Beck taken before me the 28th day of March AD 1837.

ques by Justice is James Beck the father of your child

Ans. yes sir

ques by Deft. what time was the child begotten

Ans. I cannot tell the day of the month but it was in July at the time father was gone to Wheeling

Ques. was your mother at home and was there much fire in the house

Ans. my mother was at home and not much fire in the house

Ques. by Deft. where was the child begotten

Ans where I now lay on this bed

Ques who was in the bed at the time

Ans. my sister Rachel who was between 11 & 12 years old

Ques by deft was I ever on this bed with you but once

Ans no

Ques did I when I came to your bed get in the bed and have to do with you

Answer You did

Ques was that the first time I came to see you

Ans no it was not

Given under my hand and seal this 28th day of March AD 1837

Samuel Skinner (seal)

Justice of the Peace

In more ways than one I found this an absolutely fascinating read. It's the only document in the entire file that shows anything of the personality of this young girl at the center of the case. As I read it I wondered at how honest she was being. I wondered at the chutzpah of this girl, that she would invite a young man into her bed with her mother at home and her much younger sister laying beside her as the two were intimate. At first glance it's a real shocker, isn't it? This seems to fly in the face of our modern interpretation of the moral rigidity of times past, doesn't it? Something like this, though, vividly demonstrates that the uptight ideas of sexuality that we think our forebears had originated more from the experience of the Victorian Age than times previous to it. If twelve people lived in a two room house, the idea that sex could be practiced in privacy simply doesn't seem realistic.

There were so many other questions going through my head as I read. Did Rachel tattle? Did Julia threaten her if she told? When did Julia come forth with the truth? Was Julia punished? What was Margaret doing that kept her away from the house long enough for Julia to sneak James in? And lastly, did they ever interview little Rachel as a corroborating witness? They should have! If they did, the document is unfortunately lost.

As to the "not much fire in the house" comment that Julia made, I have a theory though I'd be open to anyone else's comments and thoughts. It seems to me that since it was July, a fire would not be needed in the house for warmth. I suspect that James was trying to establish a time of day for this event. No fire equals daytime, to me. But hey, I could be wrong. I'd welcome input.

I noticed that Julia states that the act occurred in the bed where she laid during the interview. That little detail tells me that Julia was still in bed even four days after giving birth. Perhaps her delivery was a rough one and she wasn't feeling well.

And lastly and most interesting…..Samuel was "gone to Wheeling!" Wheeling is about 50 miles one way from Harrison County, give or take. I'd estimate that meant that Samuel was easily gone an entire week and maybe more. He could have traded in Cadiz or even at Steubenville; both cities were good sized at the time and much more accessible. Wheeling is in Ohio County, which neighbors Brooke County. Brooke was taken from Ohio in 1796. I wonder if Samuel had more reason to go all the way to Wheeling than just stocking up on goods? Perhaps he was visiting kin? That idea excites me, especially considering the deeds featuring Lewis and Lemuel Browning of Brooke County, WV.

This concludes the action on the case until the June Term. Next time we'll be in June!

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.....

Wordless Wednesday - The Writing's On The Wall

That pretty much tells it like it was, doesn't it?

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!