1650 or after – Thomas Gowing in Stafford County, Virginia

Thomas Gowing believed to be born after 1650 – his birth date, or date of death is not found, nor is any spouse’s name.  (Note:  Despite having quite a few records regarding Thomas Gowing, his records regarding his family relationships and probate papers have not been located yet.  His court and deed records do not shed light on the exact relationships between him and the “children” I have listed.  I assume he is the father based on the timing of when he starts showing up in records in Virginia in relation to when William, John and James appear – but it is possible that one of the other men is actually the patriarch of this group – if it is someone else, my guess would be John Goin who died in 1721.  Stafford Co, Va Will Book K’s index seems to point to William Going b. abt 1680 who dies abt 1726 was possibly acting as the executor of John Goin’s estate – where if Thomas was the father in this group – you would think he might be the executor – we just don’t know for sure).

(Y1) YDNA Group

Parents:

John Gowing b. abt 1600-15 (Note:  Not confirmed at this time – I am speculating on the possibility that John Gowing of York Co, Va is an ancestor or parent … this is a guess – no documents have been found to date to confirm any relationship).  

Children:

John Gowing b. 1680
William Gowing b. 1682
James Gowing b. 1683

(Note:  Thomas Going b. after 1650 is likely the parent of William, James, and John – not confirmed – appears that Thomas, William, John, and James are all definitely family.  Thomas has been assumed as the “father” as he is the first one to start showing up in records in Westmoreland and Stafford Counties, Virginia. The Thomas Going of Westmoreland Co, Va appears to be the same as the one who purchases land in 1707 in Stafford Co, Va. But due to the amount of time Thomas Going shows up in Stafford/Fairfax Co, Va – there is a possibility that the Thomas Going of Stafford County is a child of Thomas Going of Westmoreland – so the records on this page may combine two Thomas Goings)

Siblings:

Esau Goeing (possible – not confirmed)

States and Counties to research: 

FACTS and EVENTS:

Early Life to Adulthood:

A Thomas Going was recorded as being brought to Maryland in 1671.  1671 May 13: Frances Stannton, recd 500 acres for transp Roger Pate, James Barber, Francis Lloyd, Richard Thompson, John Vincent, Thomas Going, William Ashby, Bartholmew Hayes, Richard Taylour and  Elizabeth Miles. Bryan O’Malley of Talbot County, Planter paid Frances Stannton to assign O’Malley the rights title and interest for the 500 acres. Wit. Richard May and Robert Ridgely. Talbot Co, MD.

1671 Thomas Going to Maryland

1671 May 13 Thomas Going to Talbot Co MD copy of original marked

Compare this to:

1672 Esau Goeing and his wife Ann Goeing are noted in service in Maryland. Source: 17:376 Film No: Husband of Ann, service by 1672;  MSA SC 4341- 1672 Goeing, Ann17:376 Film No: Wife of Esau Goeing, service by 1672; Anne, the wife of Esau Goeing proved rights to land for service provided in Talbot County, Maryland. Esau Goeing assigned his wife’s rights for her service to John Pitt in Talbot County, Maryland.

Note:  This transaction tells us a few things a) Anne Goeing was owed for her service – likely this was an indenture, meaning she started her indenture at least 4 years earlier (1668 or before). Since she was married, and selling her rights to her service, she was now free.  b) Esau Goeing married Anne Goeing, and as her husband, he was selling her rights due to her for her service.  Since he was contracting and married, he obviously was not under any indenture either – no documents have indicated Esau ever was a servant, nor have any documents indicated when Esau Goeing arrived in the Americas.  He may have been born in the Americas.

Relationship to Thomas Going – it appears this may be Thomas Going.  Both Thomas and Esau appear in records in Talbot County, Maryland about 1671/72.  Both then appear in records in Westmoreland County, Virginia in 1693.  This “suggests” they may be related in some fashion, but it is unknown how.1672-esau-goeing-and-ann-goeing-in-talbot-county-maryland-snip

By 1693 Thomas Gowing is living in Westmoreland County, Virginia [organized in 1653 from Northumberland County] where he appears in several court records.

April 7, 1693, Westmoreland County. At Court: Abraham Smith vs. Thomas Goen.  Defamation.  1693 May 31, In “Abraham Smith vs. Thomas Goen,” Smith appears in court and “withdrew in person” the charge against the defendant May 31, 1693. [John Frederick Dorman, Westmoreland County Virginia Order Book 1690-1698, Part 2, 1962, p. 34]

Westmoreland Co orders p 204 Abraham Smith v Thomas Goen

Gawen Corbin Gent attachd an attachmt against the estate of Eashaw Goeing for eight hundred and fifty poundsand the sheriff under return that he had it attached one gray horse branded on both buttocks with obscure H brands which a horse has had in custody and a bridle and saddle in the hands of Abraham Smith as being the proper estate of the sd Eashaw Goeing.

Easaw Goeing late of this county being indebted to Mr. Gawen Corbin in the summ of eight hundred and fifteen pounds of tobo by cask as it was said and having absented himself out of the county the sd Corbin obtained an attachment agst the sd Goeings   estate by Corbin of which the Sheriff attached one gray horse branded on both buttocks with an obscure brand being the proper estate of the sd Easaw Goeing as by the estate of the sd attachmt doth appeare. And for that it appeared to this court by the oath of Mr James Ellis that the sd Easaw Goeing stood justly indebted to the sd Gawen Corbin in that sum of amt of tobo by ammt for good judgment is granted him for his sd debt and (sp?) and the sd horse being appraised at Eight hundred pounds of tobo and undemaned awarding (sp?). It is ordered the sheriff orer over him to the sd Mr Corbin in part of satisfaction of his sd debt and such.

potomac-river-area-both-md-and-va-marked

potomac-river-area-both-md-and-va-marked

On July 28, 1697, Thomas Goen receives a judgment against Joseph Bragg in the amount of 1,300 pounds of tobacco.  

On September 29, 1697, “Thomas Goen confesses judgment” to Charles Lucas in the amount of 1,250 pounds of tobacco “due by bill.”

Westmoreland Co orders p 528 Lucas v Goen

1700/01 Feb 28: It was comanded Willo: Allerton Gent sheriff of the County aforesd that hee should arrest Thomas Goen to answer Eliza Beer admnst of Thomas Beer of a plea of debt for five hundred fifty eight pound of tobacco upon which the sheriff returned copi corpus. But the Deft faileing to appeare and no baile being returned, order passed agt the sheriff for the sd debt costs according to law.
Willoughby Allerton Gent sheriff of the sd County being comanded to arrest Thomas Goen to answer Eliza Beere admst of Thomas Beere decd in a plea of debt for five hundred fifty eight pounds of tobo. upon which returning copi corpus the deft faileing to appear and no baile being returned order passed agt the sd sheriff for the sd debt and costs according to law wherefore at the request of the sd sheriff order it granted him for an attachment against the estate of the sd Thomas Goen for the sd debt and costs according to law.  Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 109.

1701 Aprill 30: Thomas Goen confessed judgmt to Ms Eliza Beer that admnst of Mr. Tho: Beer decd for five hundred fifty eight pounds of tobacco ordered hee pay the same with costs at execution. Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 111.

1700/1701 Feb 28: Elizabeth Beer vs. Thomas Goen. p109.
Westmoreland orders, 1690/91 to 1698. Copied by George W. Glass. pg 130.

Thomas Gowing” is listed as one of the owners of the “Josiah & Bettey,” according to “List of Ships Entering Inwards in Potomack District, January 25-September 29, 1703.” The ship is described as “pink, built in Salem in 1689, 50 tons, Josiah Novell, master, Mr. Henry Coan, Thomas Gowing, Edw. Billing, owners.”

1703 Virginia list of ship owners Thomas Gowing owner ship built in 1689

http://interactive.ancestry.com/48412/DuplicatesVARecs-004225-324?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2fsearch%2fdb.aspx%3fdbid%3d48412%26path%3d&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnBrowsing#?imageId=DuplicatesVARecs-004206-305

50 ton boat

(Note: Possible type boat owned)

1702 Oct 1: Judgment is granted Thomas Goen against the estate of John Harris for the sume of two hundred thirty four pounds of tobo: the same appeareing due by account proved by the oath of the said Goen.
Ordered hee bee paid the same out of the sd Harrisses estate with costs of suit in his behalf at execution.  Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 174.

1703 May 26: Chapman Dark by the peticon to this court shewing that some tyme agoe by assignemt from John Harper of Stafford County his late Master, hee was assigned to Joseph  Tayler of this County for the remaining part of his tyme of service not then expired, that his sd tyme of service is some tyme past expired as by the sd assignment if produced would appeare, but the sd Joseph Tayler wrongfully detaines him and refuses to produce the assignment by wch hee pretends to claime a right to his service to the peticoners great detriment and praying to bee discharged from his said master Tayler. Therefore it is ordered that the sheriff of this County do summon the sd Joseph Tayler that hee appeare at the next Court to bee held for this County to answer the sd complt and shew cause if any hee can why hee detaines the said Chapman Dark and because the sd Chapman Dark hath offered to this Court that hee can produce testimony from Maryland that hee is realy free praying liberty to go over to Maryland to procure the same. Thomas Goen haveing assumed to the Court in the summe of two thousand pounds of tobo that the sd Chapman Dark shall appeare before her Majesties justices here at the next Court to bee held for the County to prosecute his said complaint and that in case hee bee not found to bee free hee shall serve his sd master ratably(sp?) after his first tyme expired according to Law for the tme of his absence. It is ordered that hee the sd Chapman Dark have liberty to go for Maryland in order to prosecute his sd pretence. Westmoreland County Court orders 1698 to 1705 pg. 190a.

1703 June 30: Upon a full heareing of all matters debated and argued between Chapman Dark and Joseph Tayler his late master concerning his freedom, it is the oppinion of this Court that the sd Chapman hath served his full tyme of service due to his said late master and doe therefore discharge him from any further service pretendedly due to the said Tayler and order that the sd Joseph Tayler doe forthwith pay him his corn and cloaths due to him according to the custom of this Colony together with his costs in the behalf also etc.
From which judgment the sd Joseph Tayler appeals to the second day of the next Genl Court.
John Spencer Gent assuming with the appellant for his prosecucon of his sd appeale, and
Thomas Goen with the appellee for his appeareance and ordered they enter into bond according to Law for performance of the same.  Westmoreland County Court orders 1698 to 1705 pg. 194a-195.

1703 August 25 – the probate of the estate of Capt. Thomas Atwell revealed that “Thomas Goen” was listed among the creditors of the estate. Court: estate Thomas Atwell, 25 Aug 1703, , Westmoreland, Virginia, USA.”On August 25, 1703, the probate of the estate of Capt. Thomas Atwell revealed that “Thomas Goen” was listed among the creditors of the estate.”  http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/westmore.htm ; http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Gibson_Gowen.htm  (Note:  Thomas Atwell’s spouse’s maiden name was Anne Youell (see:  http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I025834&tree=Tree1 ).  Anne Youell’s father Thomas Youell, was married to Anne Sturman and an Anne Lee.  John Hallowes b. abt. 1586, was married to Ann Youell who came into court in Westmoreland County, Virginia in 1656 and stated she was the widow of Mr. John Hallowes (or Hollis). (Note – Thomas Atwell’s wife had connections with both the Sturman and Youell families, both very closely related to John Hallowes or Hollis b. abt. 1586 and his son John Hallowes or Hollis b. abt. 1612-15’s families – see: https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/1593-john-hallowes-carpenter/ ).   John Hallowes b. abt 1615 was first married to a Restitute Tew –  His 2nd marriage was to an Elizabeth Sturman (unk maiden name – she had previously been married to John Sturman).  John Sturman (her first husband) was the brother of Anne Sturman Youell who had married Thomas Youell – the same Thomas Youell who was father of Anne Youell who had married Thomas Atwell).  (see: https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/1613-to-1616-john-hollis-of-md-and-va/ ).  It is uncertain “which” Anne Youell and John Hollowes/Hollis these were that were married, but its obvious there was a family relation here.  Again, just as a reminder, the Y-DNA of the Gowen and Hollis families in the south are a match.  This appears to add additional evidence that the John Hollis b. abt. 1700 family is related to the John Hallowes b. abt. 1612-15 family).

Wills and Deeds 1701 to 1709 p 197 Atwell inventory

Wills and Deeds 1701 to 1709 p 198 Atwell inventory Thomas Goen

1703 Aug 25: Thomas Goen acknowledged Danll McCarty to bee his attorney in an accon (action) comenced by him agt Charnock Cox.  Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 200a.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4K-2STZ-R?i=413&cat=382658

1703 Nov Ct Thomas Gowing v Charnock Cox: In an accon of tresspass in assault and battery brought by Thomas Gowing agt Charnock Cox upon the mocon of the Deft a speciall imparlance is granted him untill next Court. Westmoreland Co, Va Court orders, 1662-1873 p 212.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4K-2STQ-G?i=437&cat=382658

1703 Nov Ct Thomas Gowing v Charnock Cox in Westmoreland Co, Va

1703 Dec 31: At a court held for the sd County the 31 day of December 1703. Bruce vs Barrow} John Bruce being summoned as an evidence agt Thomas Goen for Edward Barrow in the suite depending between Edwd Barrow pltf and Thomas Goen deft and haveing made oath hee had attended three dayes ordered that the sd Barrow pay the said John Bruce according to Law with costs at execution. Westmoreland Co Va Court orders 1690-98 p 213a.

County Court orders 1698 to 1705 p 440 Thomas Goen

1703 Dec 31: In the accon of case brought by Edward Barrow agt Thomas Goen for that the sd Barrow did not prosecute the same to effect upon the mocon of the Deft a nonsuite is grted him against the said Edward Barrow and ordered hee pay hte same with costs at execucon.  Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 216.

1704 July Court: Paine vs Goen: (poor smudged copy): Thomas Goen was attached to answer at (smudged) Ann Paine — a plea of trespass on the case — the — — George Estridge her attorney complained agt the sd Thos Goen for — hee the said Thomas Goen on or abt the fifteenth day of April last — — one young mare of — color commonly called a snowball — on the buttock with a — Ironhook — proper good — —- the said Ann Paine of the value of five pounds — — the parish of Copeley in the County aforesd did take — away and — her own use covey contrary to the peace — — imparlance several continuances — — by Danl McCarty — attorney for plea sad that hee — the mare aforesd of Walter Eigh— —- for a valuable —- —- a proper —- hee is not guilty — — the pltf by his attorney aforesd comes said that the aboves Walter English — — — — — sale aforesd — — to the place aforsd that therefore — —- that the Deft aforsdwas guilty — and of the — Therefore it is considered and comanded the sheriff that hee should —– twelve — — the sheriff haveing  returned twelve —- — —- of his — who — Thomas Marson, Inwright Smith, John Hartley, John Steel, Joseph Hudson, —- Thomas, George Harrison, Wm Sin—,  Richd Hancock, Danl —-, John —-, Nathaniel Pope being charged and sworn to —  the — — — premises upon their sd oath do say wee find for the pltf — that the mare bee delivered into the possession of the pltf and for damages wee find six pences Therefore — is considred that the Pltf aforsd doe recover the mare aforesd together with the damage aforesd by the jury aforesd in form aforesd together with the damage aforesd by the Jury aforesd in form aforesd found as also — — — behlf and that shee have execution thereon.  From which judgmt the sd Thomas Goen appeals to the second day of the next Genl Court. John Spencer Gentl and Isaac Sheppard securities with the appellant for the prosecution of the sd appeale. Westmoreland County, Va Court Order book 1698-1705. pg 482.

County Court orders 1698 to 1705 p 482 Thomas Goen

1704 Aug 30: It was comanded Burdett Ashton Gent late sheriff of the County aforesd that hee should arrest Thomas Goen to answer Edward Barrow of a plea on the case to his damage for twelve hundred pounds of tobo and the sd Sheriff returned copi corpus. But the Deft faileing to appeare and no baile being returned order passed agt the sd sheriff for the sd debt according to law.
Burdet Ashton Gent late Sheriff of the County aforesd was comanded to arrest Thomas Goen to answer the suite of Edward Barrow of a plea on the case for twelve hundred pounds of tobo upon which the sd sheriff returning copi corpus. The Deft faileing to appeare and no baile being returned order passed agt the sd sheriff for the sd debt and costs according to law wherefore at the instante of the sd Sheriff an attachment is granted him against the estate of the sd Goen for the sd suite and costs returnable according to law.  Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 238a.

1704 Aug 30: John Medford vs Thomas Goen for a barren cow. The Deft not appearing, order is granted agt the Sheriff and an attachmt granted the Sheriff.  Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 239a.

In 1704/5: Court: arrests and fines Thomas Gowen, regarding a jail-break, Aft 1 Mar 1704/05, Westmoreland, Virginia, USA. “Shortly afterward, Thomas Gowen, Mathew Martin and Mark Chilton were arrested and required to post bond in connection with part in a jail break in con-nection with a plea made by Stephen Jones, according to  “Westmoreland County, Virginia Order Book 1705-1721″ by John Frederick Dorman:”

On March 1, 1704/05 the Westmoreland County Court orders Thomas Gowen to pay to Edward Barrow 1,200 pounds of tobacco which Thomas Gowen lost to him in a horse race.    1704/05 March 1: In the accon of case depending in the Court between Edward Barrow Pltf andThomas Goen Deft concerning a horse race for twelve hundred pounds of tobacco after plea pleaded issue joyned and a jury sworn and charged to say the truth in the premises they the said jury upon their said oaths doe say wee the jurors do find for the Pltf. Therefore it is considered that the pltf aforesd do recover agt the Deft aforesd as well twelve hundred pounds of tobacco the wager aforesd by the pltf aforesaid declared for as also his costs of suite in his behalf expended which hee is ordered to pay to the pltf aforesd otherwise at execucon.  Westmoreland County Court Orders 1698 to 1705. pg 254a.

1705 March 7 Thomas Goen v Richard Kenner: It was comanded Charles Ashton Gentl late sheriff of this County that hee should have the body of Richard Kenner at March Court 1705 to answer Thomas Goen in a plea on the case to his damage two thousand pounds of tobacco, who made return that hee had took the body of the sd Richd Kenner etc but he failing to appeare and no baile being returned upon the mocon of the Pltf, it is ordered that unless the sd Sheriff bring forth the bodyof the sd Kenner for the next Court to bee held for the sd Courts Judgment to bee confirmed against for the Damages and costs recorded.
Charles Ashton Gent late sheriff of the county was comanded to have the body of Richard Kenner at March Court 1705 to answer Thomas Goen in a plea on the case to his damage two thousand pounds of Tobacco who made return hee had taken the body of the sd Richard Kenner etc but the sd Kenner failing to appeare and no baile being returnd order passed againsted the sd late Sheriff for the damages and costs aforesd according to law wherefore at the instance of the sd Charles Ashton and attachmt is granted him against the estate of the sd Richard Kenner for the value of the above damages and costs returnable and to bee aproved in according to law.   Westmoreland Co Va Court orders, 1662-1873 p 16.   https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4L-9SRK-Q?i=60&cat=382658

1705 March 7 Thomas Goen v Richard Kenner in Westmoreland Co Va

In 1706: 29 August 1706, p.37, a judgment is granted John Higgins against Thomas Goen for five hundred forty five pounds of tobacco due by bill account ordered hee pay the same with costs. Shortly afterward, Thomas Gowen, Mathew Martin and Mark Chilton are arrested and required to post bond in connection with part in a jail break in connection with a plea made by Stephen Jones, according to “Westmoreland County, Virginia Order Book 1705-1721” by John Frederick Dorman:

Thomas Goen, being bound by recognizance to answer our Soveraigne Lady the Queen of a force and rescue of a prisoner out of the custody of Wm. Chandler, constable for Machotique precinct, this day upon examination the Court do set upon him the fine of 20 shillings sterling. It is also ordered Thomas Goen enter into recognizance for his personall appeareance and in the mean tyme to bee of good behaviour. Tho. Goen assumes in the summe of £20 sterling. Mathew Martin in the sume of £5 sterling. Mark Chilton in the summe of £5 sterling.”

1706/7 January 29:  WESTMORELAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA ORDER BOOK, 1705-1707 {Antient Press}: pg 69.  Westmorland County Ss. At a Court held at the Courthouse for the said County the twenty ninth day of January 1706/7
– The Queen v MARSON JOHN BUSHROD, Gent., one ofher Majties Coroners for this County returned into Court an Inquest by him taken on the dead body of an Infant found buried in the ground neare the House of Mr. THOMAS MARSON in the Parish of CopIe in the County aforesd. born on the body of FRANCES MARSON, Daughter of THOMAS MARSON, (as appeared by her own confession) which FRANCES MARSON suspected to have murthered the Child together with one LOCKLEY GARLAND who was suspected to bee an accessory to the murther, being lately committed to the Common Goale of this County by Precept from FRANCIS WRIGHT, HENRY ASHTON and JOHN BUSHROD, Gent., Justices for the sd County, upon the Suspicions aforesd. It was ordered the Sheriff should bring the Prisoners to the Barr, who being severally examined touching the matter whereof they severally stood accused, it is the oppinion of the Court and accordingly ordered to bee entered on Record that the persons for the facts whereofthey severall stand accused ought to bee tryed at the Generall Court, And doe therefore remand them to the County Goale aforesaid FRANCES MARSON, the Prisoner at the Barr upon suspicion of haveing murthered a female bastard Child lately born on her body being examined whether the Child was born of her body, shee answers, ”Yes.” It being further asked ofher whether the Child was dead or alive when born, she answered “it was dead.” and that (shee believed) two dayes before shee was delivered by occason of a fall shee had from
a Fence with a Paile of Water upon her head; being asked whether any person was present at the delivery, she answered “no.” for that there was no person in the house at the tyme. It being further enquired why shee did not immediately discover the same, she replyed shee was ignorant that the Law required any such discovery Ordered the Sheriff doe forth with impress a man and horse with sufficient aid to bring the body of ROBERT IRON, Servant to Mr. THOMAS MARSON before this Court tomorrow morning at the first sitting of the Court in order to his being bound by recognizance for his appearance at the next Generall Court his Evidence against the Prisoners, FRANCES MARSON, and LOCKLEY GARLAND The severall persons hereunder named (to witt) WILLIAM MARTYN, JOHN SOUTH, THOMAS LAMBERT, ANN MORRIS, THOMAS GAWEN, JOHN LAMBERT, ELIZABETH JEWELL who were bound by recognizance to appeare this day to give in their Evidence against FRANCES MARSON and LOCKLEY GARLAND, the Prisoners at the barr, severally appeared and are discharged for that it did not appeare their attendance was any longer behoofall
http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I070060&tree=Tree1

1706 August 29, p.37 Judgment is granted John Higgins against Thomas Goen for five hundred forty five pounds of tobacco due by bill account ordered hee pay the same with costs.   http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/westmore.htm ; http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Gibson_Gowen.htm

Westmoreland Co County Orders 1705 to 1721 p103 Higgins v Goen

Thomas Goin of Westmoreland County receives Grant No. 42 from the proprietors June 8, 1707 to 653 acres in Stafford County. The land is located “below the falls of the Potomac,” according to “Virginia Northern Neck Land Grants, 1694-1742,” page 39. The land lays adjoining the land of Maj. Robert Alexander, according to a Prince William County, Virginia deed written May 29, 1739. Maj. Robert Alexander does not live on this land, but lives at “Boyd’s Hole,” according to the research of Col. Carroll Heard Goyne, Jr.

http://image.lva.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/drawer?retrieve_image=LONN&dir=/LONN/NN-3/288-3/288&image_number=0677&offset=%2B473&name=Grants+No.3+1703-1710&dbl_pgs=no&round=

1707 June 8 Thomas Goin recv 653a land near Ousley land in Stafford Co Va

arlington-county-land-owner-map-1669-to-1796-including-going-lands-1215acres-652acres-and-653acres-marked

arlington-county-land-owner-map-1669-to-1796-including-going-lands-1215acres-652acres-and-653acres-marked

fairfax-map-1760-marked1215acres to Thomas, John, William, and James Goin -653acres to Thomas Going -652acres James Going

fairfax-map-1760-marked1215acres to Thomas, John, William, and James Goin -653acres to Thomas Going -652acres James Going

1708 Va Stafford Co Thomas Goin on quitrent roll

1708 April 9: p. 85a. Thomas Goen moved this Court that Mr. Wm Reed practitioner at law might bee entered his attorney on the Records of this Court in all causes(sp?) pro of rou(sp?) which at his request is accordingly entered.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 85a.

1708 May: p. 93a.: It was commanded Willoughby Allerton Gent late sheriff of the County aforesd that hee should summon Thomas Goen to answer Christopher Neale and Francis Kenner (sp?) of a plea that hee rendere to them six hundred pounds of Tobo etc and the sheriff returned cosz(sp?) corpus. But for that the Deft failed to appeare and no baile was returned upon mocon of the Pltf Christopher Neale and Francis Kenner condiconal order is granted against the sd sheriff returnable and to bee proceeded in according to law. Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 93a.

1708 May. p. 93a.  Willoughby Allerton Gent late sheriff of the county aforesd was comanded to sumon Thomas Goen to answer Christopher Neale and Francis Kenner (sp?) of a plea of debt for six hundred pounds of tobo and the sheriff returned cosi corp.
But for the deft did not appeare and no bailed was returned condiconall ordr (sp?) agt the sd sheriff according to law. Wherefore at the instance of the sd sheriff an attachmt is grted him agt the estate of the sd Thomas Goen returnable et according to law.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 93a.

Thomas Goen is a witness to the will of John Spencer of Nominy in Westmoreland County written August 29, 1708.  1708 August 29 – “Thomas Goen” was a witness to the will of John Spencer of Nominy in Westmoreland County written August 29, 1708.
Westmoreland Co.  http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/westmore.htm ; http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Gibson_Gowen.htm

Wills and Deeds 1701 to 1709 p 630 John Spencer will with Thomas Goen as wit

On October 19, 1708 the probate of the estate of John Spencer shows that “Thomas Goen and John Wright, Gent.” are indebted to the estate in the amount of 473 pounds of tobacco.  http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/westmore.htm ; http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Gibson_Gowen.htm

1709 Jan 26: p. 108. Thomas Goen being bound by recognizance to appeare att this Court to answer our sovereigne Lady the Queen of a certaine force rescue of a prisoner out of the custody of Wm Chanler constable for Machotique Precinct that day appeared to answer the same and upon examinacon and hearing of the matters alleadged agt him the Court do sett upon him the fine or suine(sp?) of twenty shillings sterl to bee paid to our sd soveraigne Lady the Queen for his sd offence and it is also ordered that the sd Thomas Goen do enter into recognizance de novo for his personall appearance at the next Court to answer what may bee then objected agt him and in the mean tyme to bee of the good behaviour etc.
Tho Goen asmos(sp?) in the sume of 20 sterl.
-Mathew Martin in the sume of 5 sterl.
-Mark Chilton in the sume of 5 sterl.
To bee paid to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen if default be made herein.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 108.

http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/westmore.htm ; http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Gibson_Gowen.htm

1709 April 27:  WESTMORELAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA ORDER BOOK, 1707-1709 {Antient Press}: pg 86.  Westmoreland County Court 27th ofApril 1709
– KENNER &c. y GOEN Judgment is granted FRANCIS KENNER and CHRISTOPHER NEALE, Executors of the Last Will and Testament of RODHAM KENNER, against THOMAS GOEN for the sume of five hundred forty pounds of tobacco being ballance of a Bill of six hundred pounds of tobacco passed by said GOEN to RODHAM KENNER. Ordered he pay the same to the Executors together with costs als exo
http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I027906&tree=tree1

1709 April 28: Francis Kenner and Christopher Neale extrs of Rodham Kenner v. Thomas Goen. p 121A.  Westmoreland orders, 1690/91 to 1698. Copied by George W. Glass. pg 239.  1709 Aprill 28: p. 121a. Kenner v. Goen. Judgment is granted Francis Kenner and Christopher Neale executors of the last will and testament of Rodham Kenner against   Thomas Goen for the summe of five hundred and forty pounds of tobacco being ballance of a bill of six hudred pounds of tobacco past by the sd Goen to the said Rodham Kenner ordered he pay the same to his said est together with costs at ex.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 121a.

1710 Feb: p. 140. Chandler v. Goen. Judgment is granted Wm Chandler by nihil decet against Thomas Goen for the sum of one thousand pounds of tobacco said to be due by bill ordered the said Goen pay the same to the said Chandler if soe much remaine due on the sd bill together with costs in his behalfe at execution.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 140.

1710 Feb: p. 140. Awbrey v. Goen. Judgment by nihil decit is granted John Awbrey against Thomas Goen for the sum of three hundred sixty three pds of tobacco due on ball of a bill and account due to the said Awbrey proved by his oath ordered the said Goen pay him the same with costs at execution.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 140.

1710 June 28: p. 148. It was comanded John Sturman Gent late sheriff of the sd County that he should sumon Thomas Goin to answer Danll McCarty of a plea that he hold covenant to the pltf to his damage one hundred pounds sterl and the sheriff returned copi corpus. But for that the Defendant failed to appeare and noe baile being returned upon mocon of the said plaintiff condiconall order passed against the said sheriff and upon mocon of the sheriff an attachment is granted him against the Defendants estate returnable to be proceeded in according to law.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 148.

1711 April 27: p. 156. Richard Kenner brought suite against Thomas Goen of the parish of Cople in the County aforesaid labourer and declared against him for words spoke by the said Thomas against him the said Richard to his damage one hundred pounds sterl and at a Court held for the said County the 26th day of May 1708 the Defendant aforesaid appeared and prayed lycence of Imparlance till the then next Court which was granted and by severall adjournments from thence continued over till this day and now at this Court the Defendant aforesaid being called and faileing to appeare upon mocon of the pltf judgment is granted him by nihil dicit against the said Thomas Goen, But for that it is not known to the Court what damage the pltf has sustained by meanes of the words by the Defendant aforesd spoke as the pltf in his declaracon hath sett forth. It is therefore ordered that the sheriff of this County doe cause to come before her Majesties Justices at the next Court to be held for the said County (sp?word?) by whome the truth and damage aforesaid may be the better known and enquired into.
Richard Kenner brought suite against Thomas Goen of the parish of Cople in the said County labourer and whereupon the pltf complained that the Defendant aforesaid at the Parish of Cople in the County aforesd on the eleventh day of March one thousand seven hundred and seven and assault on him did make and him the pltf did strike beat wound and ovill nitreal and other harms to him did doe to his damage fifty pounds sterl and at a Court held for the sd County the 26th day of May 1708 the sd Defendant appeared and prayed lycence of imparlance till the then next Court to answer to the pltfs declaracon aforesd which was granted him and by severall adjournments from thence continued over till this day and now at this Court the said Thomas Goen being called in due form and faileing to appeare upon mocon of the pltf judgment is granted him by nihil dicit against the Defendant aforesd But for that it is not known to the Court what damage the pltf has sustained by meanes of the assault aforesaid by the pltf in his declaracon aforesaid said to be made. It is therefore ordered that the sheriff of this County doe cause to come before her Majesties Justices at the next Court to be held for the said County twelve honest and lawfull men of his baylywick by whom the truth in the premisses may be the better known and enquired into.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 156.

1711 April 27: p. 157. Thomas Goen was summoned to answer Daniel McCarty at June Court 1710 of a plea that he hold covenant to him the pltf etc to his damage one hundred pounds sterl and the sheriff returned copicorpus and noe baile being returned upon mocon of the pltf condiconall order passed against John Sturman Gent the then Sheriff of the said County for the damage aforesd and now at this Court the Defendt aforesaid being called in due form of law and faileing to appeare upon the further mocon of the sd Daniel judgment is confirmed to him against the said John Sturman late sheriff as aforesaid for his damage aforesaid and it is ordered he pay the same with costs at execucon. Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 157.    http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/westmore.htm ; http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Gibson_Gowen.htm

1711 June 28: p. 164. Memorandum that of a Court held for the said County the 26th day of May 1708 Richard Kenner brought suite against Thomas Goen of the parish of Cople and County aforesaid labourer and declared against him for words spoke by the Defendt against him the said Richard to his damage one hundred pounds sterl at which said Court appeared the said Defendt and prayed lycence of imparlance till the then next Court which was granted and at a Court held for the sd County the 25th day of Aprill 1711 after severall continuances of the same, Defendt aforesaid being called in due form of law and faileing to appeare or anyone in his behalfe to say any thing in barr or prochision of the pltfs writt and declaracon aforesaid judgment by nihil dicit passed against the said Thomas Goen according to law and it was ordered that the sheriff of the County cause to come before her Majesties justices twelve and to enquire into what damage the pltf had sustained by meanes of the words by the Defendant soe as aforesaid uttered and spoke and now at this Court the Sheriff haveing returned twelve honest and lawfull men of his baylywick sworn and charged to say the truth in the premisses upon their said oaths doe say wee find for the pltf twenty pounds sterl damage. Therefore it is considered by the Court that the pltf aforesaid doe recover agt the Defendt aforesaid as well his damage aforesaid in form aforesd by the jury aforesaid found as alsoe his costs of suite in his behalf and it is ordered the said Thomas Goen pay the same to the said Richard Kenner or order at execucon.  Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 164.

1711 June 28: p. 164. Memorandum that at a Court held for the said County the 26th day of May 1708 Richard Kenner brought suite against Thomas Goen of the parish of Cople in the County aforesaid labourer and declared against him the said Thomas for makeing an assault upon him the pltf to his damage fifty pounds sterl and at which said Court the Defendt appeared and prayed lycence of imparlance till the then next Court which was granted and at a Court held for the said County the 25th day of Aprill 1711 (after severall Continuances thereof) the said Thomas Goen being called in due form of Law and faileing to appeare or anyone in his behalf to say any thing in barr or proclusion of the pltfs writt and declaracon aforesaid. Judgment by nihil dicit passed against the sd Defendt according to Law. And it was ordered that the sheriff of this County should at the next Court to be held for the sd County cause to come before her Majesties Justices twelve and to enquire into what damage the pltf had sustained by occasion of the assault by the Defendant aforesaid on the pltf aforesaid made, and now at this Court the Sheriff haveing returned twelve honest and lawfull men of this baylywick sworn and charged to say the truth in the premisses. Upon their said oaths doe say wee find for the pltf fifteen pounds sterl damage therefore it is considered by the Court that the pltf aforesaid doe recover against the Defendt aforesd the said sum of fifteen pounds sterl the damage aforesd by the jury aforesd in form aforesd found. And it is ordered the sd Thomas Goen pay the same to the said Richard Kenner together with his costs in his behalfe expended att execucon.   Westmoreland County, Court Orders 1705-1721 p. 164.

Around 1710 Thomas Goins, John Goins, William Goins, and James Goins receive 1215 acres adjoining Robert Alexander’s land in Stafford County, Virginia. On Aug 3, 1719 this same land is purchased by Evan Thomas and John Todd both of Stafford Co who receive 1215 acres in Stafford Co on Four Mile Cr adjacent to Mr. Robert Alexander, the land that was formerly surveyed for Thomas, John, William, and James Goins. Surv. by Mr. Thomas Hooper. 3 Aug 1719. p. 69. (Note:  Evan Thomas later, in 1714, jointly receives a grant of 124 acres of land with William Going on Mason’s Neck).

The Alexander family owned much of the land that eventually would become Alexandria, Virginia – and the name of that city is from the Alexander family that owned the land. For more on Robert Alexander, and the Alexander family, see the history of Alexandria, Virginia – wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Virginia
(Note: Additional information on the 1215 acres is found in the deposition taken in 1767 of Charles Griffith, aged 70 years or thereabouts of Loudoun County, formerly of Stafford County, now called Fairfax County, the deposition taken between John Carlyle, plaintiff and Charles Alexander, defendant, the 8th day of May 1767 (a land dispute) according to “Patents and Northern Neck Grants in Fairfax County, Virginia” by Beth Mitchell) (see transcription of deposition in second half of page below in part II.  Ancestry/Immigration of Thomas Gowing):

http://ourberryfamily.com/berry/pictures/1719surveygoinsstaffordcova.jpg http://image.lva.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/drawer?retrieve_image=LONN&dir=/LONN/NN-3/289-2/289&image_number=0361&offset=%2B149&name=Grants+No.5+1713-1719+(VOL.1+p.1-130)&dbl_pgs=no&round=

1719 Going bros formerly 1215acs Staff Va

The Alexander family owned much of the land that eventually would become Alexandria, Virginia – and the name of that city is from the Alexander family that owned the land.

For more on Robert Alexander, and the Alexander family, see the history of Alexandria, Virginia – wikipedia article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria,_Virginia

On March 22, 1714, recorded December 20, 1716, Thomas Going owned 653 acres of land (now owned by Chapman) adjacent to land purchased by James Brechin “two miles below the falls of the Potomac” in Stafford County, Virgina according to Northern Neck Deed Book 5, page 44. [confirmed in image Deed Book 5, page 44, image 75.

http://lva1.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/F/NUXGTGU21PJDCXUBKG3PDBV219M4QEL55EPI2E853P1FEJACEA-44651?func=full-set-set&set_number=005585&set_entry=000028&format=999 http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/NN-3/289-2/289_0222.tif

MicroForm

1710-1722 – Chart of George Mason III showing purchase of Thomas Gowing’s 653 acres http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/landholdings/land_purchases.html

1714 deed date, and recorded 1716 – Thomas Going 653 acres adjacent to land purchased by James Brechin “two miles below the falls of the Potomac” now owned by Chapman per deed.  1716 December 20 – Thomas Going owned property adjoining James Brechin “two miles below the falls of the Potomac” according to Northern Neck Deed Book 5, page 44. image 75. – Stafford Co, Va. http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/NN-3/289-2/289_0222.tif

On January 20, 1724, in Stafford County, Virginia, 250 acres (later (in 1767) determined to be 218 acres) purchased by George Mason – adjacent to his own 653 acres of land he purchased from Thomas Gowing below falls of Petowmack. This land is adjacent to Col. Tho’s Lee. http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/NN-3/290-1/101-200.html (page 115)

1724 George Mason purch 250a land from Thomas Gowing in Stafford Va

See bio on George Mason III on Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason_III

In 1728/29 Thomas Going is on the tithe list living on the Potomack River in Stafford Co, Va, Northern Neck, listed as one of the “residents and landowners”. (Source): Stafford County Virginia Titheables. 1723-1790 in two volumes, compiled by John Vogt and T. William Kethley Jr. Volume 1, page 117, 169.

On February 18, 1729 Thomas Going owns land adjacent to Capt. Simon Pearson, Parson Brechin, and Col. George Mason near the Potomack River, listed in a land transaction by Capt. Simon Pearson of Stafford Co, Virginia according to the Northern Neck Deed Book 6. page 28. p. 101.  “Thomas Going” owns property adjoining Simon Pearson February 18, 1729, according to Northern Neck Deed Book 6. page 28.

http://lva1.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/F/NUXGTGU21PJDCXUBKG3PDBV219M4QEL55EPI2E853P1FEJACEA-46380?func=full-set-set&set_number=005585&set_entry=000024&format=999 http://image.lva.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/drawer?retrieve_image=LONN&dir=/LONN/NN-5/296/296&image_number=0101&offset=%2B14&name=Grants+O+1767-1770&dbl_pgs=no&round=

1729 Thomas Going owns land adj to Col George Mason, Simon Pearson, Parson Brechin in Stafford Co, Va MARKED

GUNSTON HALL Mason lands adj Gowing land1714 MAP of George Mason info on Gunston Hall with William Going's 124 acres marked on map

1710 1722 George Mason III purchases 653 acres from Thomas Gowing and other purchases marked

http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/landholdings/moxham.html

http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/landholdings/land_patents.html

http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/landholdings/land_purchases.html

Howson Litigation Depositions add some information about Thomas Going and family. The excerpts of the following depositions add information about Thomas Going, and James Going – See the Howson Patent Litigation section at the bottom of this page for more information about the dispute:

1767 May 8 – Deposition of Charles Griffith aged 70 years p. 281-287(Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… saith that about 43 years ago he was overseer for one Phillip Noland and that Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the present Charles Alexander came up from Boyeshole and called in at the said Nolands House when a conversation relative to the said Alexander’s land happened and the said Noland then told Alexander that one Robertson the Goings and several others had surveyed and taken up land within his great pattent, upon which the said Alexander seeming angry swore he would make them suffer and let them know his land run a great way further out than they imagined,
… he this deponent further saith that when Noland told Majr. Robert Alexander that the Goings were taking up and surveying his the said Alexanders land he the said Alexander replied to the said Noland that he had a great mind to turn the molatto rascals (who were then his tenants) off his land – and that he would (when he had a little time) survey his land and shew them how his land run …
……..(later in Griffith’s deposition)…
… he this Deponent further saith that he well remembers he was at a race in the same year where the Goings were who then had running horses and that the old people were talking about the Goings taking up Alexanders land and selling it to Thomas and Todd which land the old people then said was in Alexanders back line or at least the greatest part he well remembers that at the same time the old people said that as soon as Alexander should make a survey they would find it was in Alexanders land and that they would lose the greatest part of it.
… At the same time this Deponent saith the people was laughing and said if it were not for the Alexander’s land the Goings had sold to Thomas and Todd they said Goings would not be so lavish of their money of which they seemed to have a great plenty at that time.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-L?i=125&cat=193246
(Note: Charles Griffith gives testimony that adds some information about the Going family. It appears they raced horses. They sold the 1215 acre grant they surveyed to Thomas and Todd in 1719 (according to records) – Griffith’s testimony places it closer to 1724 as the sale date (43 years prior to his deposition). The actual records are more likely to be accurate. Griffith’s testimony also indicates that the Going family appeared to make a good bit of money off the sale of the 1215 acres they sold to Thomas and Todd).

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of David Thomas aged 70 odd p. 299-301 * (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
……..
… the Deponent says that one Johnn Wilcoxon came over from Maryland about 45-46 years ago with an intention of taking up land and he reembers that one old Benjamin Talbert used to be often at Capt. Simon Pearsons about the time that Wilcoxon came over to take up Land the Deponent says that he heard the said Pearson tell one Thomas Going that he had been taken up land which he thought had been taken up before the said Thomas Going having first told Pearson that he the said Going had been taking up land
… the Deponent further says that Evan Thomas’s Family’s Plantation and Vines Plantation were different plantations and were some distance apart
… the Deponent being asked by the Plaintiff whether he knew that the land Going had been taking up was in that neighborhood answers he does not know …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-S?i=134&cat=193246
(Note: This deposition confirms the Going family had been obtaining land in Stafford County at that time (around 1722-23 according to the deposition. In reality, the actual records indicate it was actually before that time – 1707-1719 – David Thomas would have only been about 9-18 years old at that time – which calls into question whether this was David Thomas’ personal knowledge, or information he had heard from others – hearsay).

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Benjamin Talbert aged 65 p. 303-310
… about 46-47 years ago he and one John Wilcoxon came over into Virginia and that the said Wilcoxon came over with an intention of taking up land on the River and he applied to Capt Simon Pearson to shew him the back line of Robert Alexanders land grandfather to the present Defendant …
…….
… he further says that one James Going and Gabriel Adams came out as Pearson was shewing Willcoxon and told him the said back line and he remembers that Going at the same time agreed that Robert Alexander held to the back line which Pearson was showing …
… some were of opinion that Alexander would be allowed to hold to the said line and others were not as it gave Alexander more land than his papers mentioned
… he says that Tom Going confessed that Robert Alexander held to the said line but he was opinion that he would not be allowed to hold ore than his papers mentioned
… says that James Going told Pearson of it had not been for the speeches and Pearson and some of the neighbors concerning the back line of Alexander they would not have sold their rights … this conversation happened some years after Pearson shewed …
… the deponent says that when the conversation happened between Pearson and Going, Pearson told Going there was a difference between taking up and purchasing and Going told Pearson that if he had known as much before as he did now he would not have sold his right
… the deponent says he went to Thomas Going the day after Gray and he had been looking for the said bound tree which bound tree the Deponent says Gray and he could not find and upon his describing the place where they had looked for the said bound tree Going told him he had come damnable near to it and that he was surprised Gray and he did not find it and that if Gray would give him a Black Horse he possessed he would shew him the said bound tree which bound tree the deponent says the said Going told him this deponent stood above Brickens Branch …
… The Deponent says he told Thomas Going he was apprehensive the said bound tree was down and Going told him that it was not for that he had see the said bound tree above Brichens Branch about 10 days before and had his hand on it
… about 30 large odd years ago … some marked trees that were on the line … by Mr George West Surveyor … he asked a man who lived over the Branch in the Old Fields near Chubb Mill … and the man answered that the Awbreys had been runing land a day or two … he further saith that Tom Going the day after Gray and this Deponent had been looking for the said corner told him he could find it the Darkest night that was, he further saith that the man who lived in the old field told him that he supposed the Awbreys had been marking the trees … (deposition continues)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-6?i=136&cat=193246
(Note: Thomas Going appears to have a bit of humor in this deposition. Around 1738 (30 years prior to deposition) Thomas Going tells Talbert and Gray they “had come damnable near to it (the bound tree marking the property line) and was surprised Gray and he did not find it, and if Gray would give him a black horse he possessed he would shew him the said bound tree” … Later in the deposition Tom Going tells Talbert and Gray that he could find the marked tree they were looking for “in the darkest night that was” – indicating he thought they were blind not to see it).

1768 June 11 – Deposition of Benjamin Sebastian aged 62 p. 314-328
…….
in the year 1731 he was imployed by Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the Defendant to live in his Island as his overseer being the Island now held by Mr Phillip Alexander and this deponent lived there that year and was also imployd by the said Robert to receive his rents which the deponent did as far as lay in his power agreeable to a list delivered him by said Robert the names of the tenants being Judith Ballenger, James Going, Sarah Young, Sarah Amos below Four Mile Creek and Edward Chubb, Richard Middleton, William Boylstone, John Straughan, Adam Straughan, Edward Earpe and Richard Wheeler above the said creek where were all the tenants then living on the said Alexanders tract of land the bounds of which is now in dispute … (Deposition continues)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-9?i=142&cat=193246
(Note: Benjamin Sebastian appears regularly in the Court Order books in Fairfax County. He is identified as “Gent.” and acts as attorney for others in many cases. His testimony is key is discrediting Charles Alexander’s claims that the land he was attempting to take was not occupied previously. Benjamin Sebastian testifies that in 1731 he collected rents for Robert Alexander (the grandfather of Charles) and that he did not collect rents in the areas that Charles was attempting to claim that they owned. He also seriously calls into question and discredits several of the witnesses that Charles Alexander called to testify on his behalf. He appears to be a serious and formidable witness in the case. Here his testimony confirms that James Going was a tenant on Robert Alexander’s land in 1731 in the area not in dispute. James Going had a lease of land on Alexander’s property – whether James actually lived on the land he leased, or just used it for production is not known. James Going had received a joint land grant with Simon Pearson about this same time).

74) 1739 May 29 – E-81: 1739 May 29 … Mr John Awbrey of the County of Prince William hath informed that there is a certain tract or parcel of waste land in the said county … about four miles below the Falls of Potomack River yet ungranted … confirm unto the said John Awbrey … land situate and being in the said County of Prince William on Potomack River side about four miles below the Great of Lower Falls of the said River and joyning to the lands of William Strutfield, Thomas Owsley, and Mr Robert Alexander and near the land of Thomas Gowing and bounded as by a survey made by Mr James Thomas as followeth .. on the west side the mouth of a Branch called Wincopin Branch opposite to the lower end of an Island in the said Potomack River called Malard’s Island and near a corner of a tract of land formerly survey’d for the aforesaid Strutfield … in the line of the land of the said Thomas Owsley … along Owsley’s line … in a line of the land of the said Robert Alexander … along the line of Alexander …thence up the said Patomack River … to the beginning. Containing 86 acres …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSYD-X3TN-8?i=237&cat=414338 ,  http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/NN-5/291-2/1-100.html (page 81)

http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/NN-5/291-2/1-100.html (page 81)

1739 Thomas Gowing living next to Robert Alexander, Owsley, Strutfield, and Awbrey in Stafford Co, Va MARKED

1743 Feb 10 – Thomas Going buys a lease on land from Robert Bates in Fairfax County, Va. (Fairfax County, Va deed index).  1743 Feb 10th … between Robert Bates of Fairfax County, planter of the one part and Thomas Going of the same County planter of the other part … Robert Bates for and in consideration … of the said Thomas Going … to be paid due and performed … granted … to the said Thomas Going one meseuage plantation … tract of land whereon he now dwells containing 100 acres more or less being part of a larger tract of land granted to … is bounded as followeth beginning at the Rattle Snake Run … to Fitshughes line from thence to Wests so along Solomons tract to Harrisons line … to the said Thomas Going his heirs and assignes for and during the term of their natural lives of the said Thomas Going, Elizabeth Carrol daughter of William Carrol & Henry Bates son of the said Robert Bates and of the longest liver of them … .. on said tenement … to tend any part of the said land during the said tenment … of the said Thomas Going … paying to the said Robert Bates … six hundred and thirty pounds of tobacco yearly during such subtenants abode thereon over and above the yearly rent above mentioned … Signed: Robert Bates, Thomas Going. Wit: Margaret Territt, William Carol, William Henry Terrett. Filed in Fairfax County Court on Feb 16, 1743 by Robert Bates. Deed bk A1, p 101, Fairfax Co, Va
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4V-BSFF-T?i=59&cat=202100

1743 Feb 4 – Lease. Robert Bates, of Fairfax Co, planter, and William Perkins, same Co. Named in boundaries Gabriel Adams, Alexander Scott, clerk Thomas Farmes (or Fanner), now Hugh Wests, along line of land leased by Robert Bates to Thomas Going, lease for the natural lives of the said William Perkins, Valentine Perkins his son & Sara Perkins his dau for life. Wit. Mary Terrett, Ann Pearson. 15 Mch 1755, p. 139.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4V-BSFH-6?i=79&cat=202100

In a 1746 transaction, George Mason still owns the 653 acres of land that he had purchased from Thomas Goings.

1746 Thos Goings 1746

Again, in 1767, George Mason III (dec’d) has passed 218 acres adjacent to the 653 acres he acquired from Thomas Going, this land down to his heir and son George Mason IV, who also now holds the land purchased by his father from Thomas Going. (Note:  these 218 acres are adjacent to the 653 acres Thomas Going purchased around 1707/1708 and later sold to George Mason).

1767-george-mason-still-owns-land-obtained-from-thomas-going-in-stafford-co-va-marked-snip

1767-george-mason-still-owns-land-obtained-from-thomas-going-in-stafford-co-va-marked-snip

HOWSON PATTENT LITIGATION:

What was at stake? The following map is not exact (didn’t have my protractor out) so just an estimation based on the claims made. I have marked the map below with A, F, D, and E.  The dispute was about how the line went from the known point on the Southwest portion of the Alexander land.  Directly North leads to E. 6 degrees West leads to point D, 15 degrees West leads to point F. 17 degrees West leads to point A (letters in red).

A survey was done in 1741 showing the following land if the line went directly North (E). It showed that directly North that the Alexanders had 6562 acres of land. Their original Howson patent said it was supposed to be 6000 acres. The Alexanders were claiming that the line went 17 degrees west to point (A) – which would have given them at least another 4000+ acres of land (approximately). It would have taken a majority of the Carlyle land, all of the Chapman and Awbrey land (marked in yellow – this was the Thomas and Todd land they had purchased from Thomas Going, John Going, William Going and James Going), and it would have taken several other people’s land that they had held for over 40-50 years in many cases:

With line heading directly north – this gives the following acreage to the Alexander Family for the Howson pattent:

1) Mr Gerrard Alexander 2959 acres
2) John Alexander 1421 acres
3) Townshend Dade land 400 acres
4) Baldwin Dade land 400 acres
5) John Alexander and Hugh West 220 acres
6) Harry ? 200 acres
7) Cpt Phillip Alexander 500 acres
8) Holmes Island 302 acres
9) Pearson’s Island 160 acres

TOTAL Acres: 6562 acres with line going directly North to point (E) accounted for in below map – today’s estimates place the area at 8000 acres. They were attempting to add another 50-60% to their patent by having an “undefined” back line.

In 1771 Carlyle won his case and the court ejected Alexander from Carlyle’s land. They held that the survey should go to point E on the map above (directly North). Unfortunately, when looking up the Howson litigation involving the Alexander family, researchers always seem to claim the Alexander family “won” the cases. This could not be further from the truth. They lost the case. They ended up getting what they originally were granted – but they were attempting to almost double their land size by illegally seizing other people’s property and claiming their back line was “undefined” and allowed them to do so.

The Alexander family received the 6000 acre Howson patent in 1669 and never appeared to file a survey. They used this fact to claim the land description in their Deed actually extended beyond the actual plat, and were successful in several occasions in ejecting people from land they had owned, at times for decades.  This “undefined” back line allowed the Alexanders to act in a predatory way to swoop in and take land behind their back line whenever they wanted to extend their property holdings.

The first survey that eventually made its way into court was in 1741 where the options of a direct north back line, a 6 degree west back line, and a 15 degree west back line were drawn for the court. This survey was used in later court cases in 1771 involving John Carlysle, and in 1809-1814 case involving Parthenia Dade (an Alexander daughter who had married into the Dade family).

1766-1771 case in Fairfax Co, Va:  AMINIDAL SEEKRIGHT (tenant of Carlysle) & JOHN CARLYSLE v. CHARLES ALEXANDER

(Facts of Case: John Carlysle had leased 800 acres of land on his property to Aminidal Seekright for 7 years on May 21, 1766. Aminidal Seekright then arrived at the 800 acre farm on May 23, 1766. Charles Alexander sent in one of his “employees”, a Mr. Timothy Dreadnaught to “by force of arms” remove Aminidal Seekright and eject him from the land. Charles Alexander was claiming the land was his. Aminidal Seekright resisted and remained on the land and brought suit. John Carlysle joined in the suit as it had to do with his property line).

Finding of Jury and Court against Charles Alexander:

The jury sworn to try the issue in this cause returned into Court and upon their oath say that the artificial bounds of Alexander’s land are from red C on Hunting Creek to black E, and thence to the mount of Wancopin branch at Black A, laid down in the surveyors plat returned in this cause and that the Defendant is guilty in manner and for as the Plaintiff against him hath complained and they do assess damages (crease in page cant read rest of line) … shilling besides his costs. Therefore it is considered by the Court that the Plaintiff recover against the Deft his term yet to come of and in the messuage or a tenement and lands with the appurtenancy in the declaration mentioned together with his damages aforesaid in form aforesaid assessed, and his costs by him about his suit in this behalf expended. and the said Deft may be taken and whereupon the Plt pray the writ of our Lord the King to the Sheriff of the said County of Fairfax to be directed to cause him to have his possession of his term aforesaid yet to come and to him it is granted returnable here.

Unfortunately the Alexanders kept up their shennanigans and actually won a few cases, ejecting rightful owners from their land. In 1809 they attempted to do this to a family member – and the US Supreme Court eventually found against the Alexander family in an 1814 case with Chief Justice Marshall issuing the following opinion AGAINST the Alexander family’s claim that their patent extended west any degrees in their attempts to confiscate other people’s lands:

1814 Case – ALEXANDER v. PENDLETON

12 U.S. 462
8 Cranch 462
3 L.Ed. 624
ALEXANDER AND OTHER
v.
PENDLETON.
March 12, 1814

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, as a Court of Equity.

The case, as stated by MARSHALL, Ch. J. in delivering the opinion of the Court, was as follows:

This suit was brought in the year 1806, in the Circuit Court for the county of Alexandria, for the purpose of quieting the title of Nathaniel Pendleton, the Plaintiff in that Court, to 83 acres of land contiguous to the town of Alexandria which have been in his possession, and in the possession of those under whom he claims, from the year 1732 to the present time.

Robert Alexander, being seized of a large tract, on part of which the town of Alexandria now stands, on the 17th of January in the year 1731-2, executed to Dade Massey, then about to intermarry with his daughter Parthenia Alexander, his bond in the penalty of 800l. with a condition that he would convey to his daughter Parthenia and her heirs, on demand, four hundred acres of land lying on Potomac, ‘beginning on the river side and from thence running to his back line, making a long square so as to have the same breadth on the river as on the back line.’

The marriage soon afterwards took effect, and she was put into possession of the land by the following bounds, that is to say: ‘Beginning at the mouth of Goings gut, on the river Potomac, and extending down the river so as to include four hundred acres of land between the river and the back line.’

The back line called for in the patent was a due north course; that by which Robert Alexander then held was north 6 west. Claims have been since successfully asserted which would vary the back line so as to run north 17 west. The Appellants insist that those who hold under Parthenia shall be compelled to extend to the back line, as now established, and proportionably to contract their line down the river, so that the parallelogram shall still comprize four hundred acres. Pendleton, who is a purchaser under Parthenia, insists on being limited on the west by the line north 6 west, which was the back line when the title of Parthenia accrued.

In the year 1735, Robert Alexander departed this life, having first made his last will in which he devised as follows: ‘Item, I give to my daughter Parthenia Massey four hundred acres in Prince William county, according to my bond. Item, I give to my daughter Sarah Alexander, four hundred acres joining Parthenia Massey, the same length on the back line and the same breadth on the river.’

Parthenia survived her husband, Dade Massey, and intermarried with Townshend Dade. Sarah intermarried with Baldwin Dade, and was put into possession of the land devised to her.

John and Gerard Alexander were the only sons of Robert, and were the co-devisees of the bulk of his estate. In April, 1740, John instituted a suit against Gerard for partition; and to this suit Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and Baldwin Dade and Sarah, his wife, were parties Defendants. A decree of partition was made, directing that the lands of the Dades also should be allotted to them to be held in severalty. Commissioners were appointed to execute this decree, with directions to report their proceedings to the Court.

Under this interlocutory decree the land was surveyed by Joseph Berry, and a division made. Four hundred acres were allotted to Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, and the same quantity to Baldwin Dade and Sarah, his wife. This allotment was made on the idea that north 6 west was the true back line. But as the Alexanders intended to institute suits for the purpose of recovering lands lying west of the north 6 line, it was agreed between all the parties that the partition then made should not be conclusive, but should depend on the suits about to be instituted. In consequence, as is presumed, of this verbal agreement, the survey and proceedings under this interiocutory decree were not returned; and in May, 1741, the suit was dismissed agreed.

Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, remained in quiet possession of the four hundred acres devised to Parthenia by her father, according to those boundaries which had been marked out on the idea that north 6 west was the true back line.

Sarah Dade died without issue; on which event her land was limited to her two brothers John and Gerard, who entered thereon and continued to hold it according to Berry’s survey.

John Carlyle claimed the land west of north 6 west; and, in April 1766, commenced an ejectment against Alexander, who appears to have recovered part of the land between north 6 and north 17 west in a previous ejectment against one of his tenants. In May, 1771, a verdict and judgment were rendered in his favor.

In the year 1774, Townshend Dade and Parthenia, his wife, instituted a suit against John Alexander for a title to the land mentioned in the bond of Robert Alexander. To this suit John Alexander filed his answer stating the death of Dade Massey leaving a son by Parthenia, her subsequent marriage with Townshend Dade, and the doubt who was entitled to the land, as the reasons for its not having been previously conveyed.

In the same year, Charles Alexander, son and heir of John, filed his answer in which he states the doubt respecting the back line, admits the north 6 west to be the present back line, and prays that, should a more western boundary be at any time established, he and his heirs might be at liberty to vary the boundaries of Parthenia’s land so as to conform to such future back line.

In 1776, a deed was executed by Charles Alexander to Parthenia Dade conveying 400 acres of land according to the bond of Robert Alexander. This deed specifies no boundaries and contains no stipulation respecting the future change of the back line. It would confirm the will of Robert Alexander, if that will wanted confirmation. In the year 1779, this suit was dismissed neither party appearing.

In May, 1778, Parthenia Dade conveyed this tract of land with no other description of the metes and bounds than was expressed in the bond and will of her father, to William Hartshorne, who took possession of the land and held it according to Berry’s survey, which makes north 6 west the back line.

William Hartshorne laid off the northern part of the tract from the river to north 6 west in twenty-three lots which he sold to various persons; and then, in May, 1779, conveyed the residue of the land, which incindes that in controversy, to William Harman, of Pennsylvania, by metes and bounds taking north 6 west to be the true back line.

In the year 1786, Mordecai Lewis, executor of William Harman, conveyed this land to Elisha Cullen Dick, who in 1796, conveyed eighty-three acres, the land now in dispute, to Henry Lee, who, in June, 1797, conveyed to Baldwin Dade, who, on the 29th day of December, in the year 1801, conveyed to Philip Fitzhugh, who, on the 18th of February, 1802, conveyed to Nathaniel Pendleton. In the same deed Fitzhugh conveys also to Pendleton three acres of land, other part of the tract of 400 acres, with notice that Charles Alexander claims north 17 west as the back line.

Previous to the conveyance from Baldwin Dade to Philip Fitzhugh, the said Dade had conveyed the land in controversy to Thomas Swan to secure a debt due to William Hodgson. Swan conveyed to William B. Page, in trust for Hodgson, who conveyed to Hodgson, who, in July, 1803, conveyed to Pendleton.

Soon after the decision in favor of Carlyle in May, 1771, Charles Alexander brought an ejectment for the same lands, and in 1790, a verdict was given in his favor, on which a judgment was rendered, which was affirmed on appeal in 1792. In 1796, Charles Alexander instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery in Virginia, for the purpose of altering the boundaries by which the land of Parthenia had theretofore been held, and of laying off that tract so as to extend it to north 17 west, thereby narrowing its breadth where it stretches towards the town of Alexandria, and giving it more length. To this suit, those under whom Pendleton claims, with others were made Defendants.

Charles Alexander, departed this life in the year 1806, and the suit has not been revived.

Nathaniel Pendleton being about to sell the land in controversy, tendered to Charles Alexander a deed for quieting the title; and, on his refusing to execute it, instituted a suit to compel him so to do. After the death of Charles Alexander this suit was brought against the Defendant, his widow and children.

In the Circuit Court a decree was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, from which the Defendants have appealed to this Court.

The cause was argued last term, by SWAN and JONES, for the Appellants, and by E. I. LEE and C. LEE, for the Appellee.

SWANN, for the Appellant.

The only question is, whether the long possession according to metes and bounds, gives a good title notwithstanding the claim of Alexander to carry his back line so as to run north 17 degrees west; instead of north 6 degrees west.

The bond to convey to Parthenia in 1731-2, calls simply for the back line; R. Alexander’s will in 1735, devises the land to her by the same description; and the deed of confirmation from Charles Alexander in 1776, still rofers to the back line. Whatever should be the back line of Alexander’s tract, was to be the western houndary of Parthenia’s 400 acres. In 1740 a suit was instituted for partition, in which Parthenia was a party. A survey and partition was made, but was not acted upon by the Court, because the parties all understood that the back line was unsettled, and the partition then made was agreed to be temperary, and to be reformed if the back line should be carried farther to the westward than north 6 degrees west. This agreement, although verbal, was binding on Parthenia, at least so far as to prevent her possession from being considered as adversary to Alexander as to that part of the land which might be taken away upon settling the back line.

There was therefore no adverse possession until 1778, when Parthenia sold to Hartshorne. From 1778 to 1796, when C. Alexander instituted his suit in the Court of Chancery in Virginia, to after the boundaries of the tract, there had not been 20 years of adverse possession. If Pendleton had looked back to his title he would have found that it was never conveyed by metes and bounds, prior to 1778, and that the question of boundary was still unsettled. He purchased while that suit was pending, and therefore must be presumed to have had notice of the claim.

E. I. LEE and C. LEE, contra.

This case is not affected by the question, which was the true back line of Alexander’s land. Neither Parthenia nor those claiming under her, were parties to any suit in which that question was litigated, and cannot therefore be bound by any decision on that point. At the date of the bond, and of Robert Alexander’s devise to Parthenia, he held only to the line north 6 west. The conveyance is to be taken most strongly against the grantor. In 1776, when C. Alexander made the deed to Parthenia, he held only to the same line, and it had been at that time established as his back line by a judgment in the year 1771.

If there were sufficient evidence of a parol agreement, it could be only an agreement to re-convey the land, if the back line should be settled further to the westward. Being a parol agreement to convey land, it would have been void by the statute of frauds.

If Pendleton had notice of the pendency of C. Alexander’s suit in chancery to alter the boundaries, yet that suit was afterwards discontinued, and there is no evidence that Hartshorne, or those claiming under him, had notice of the claim until after they had made their purchases. Pendleton holds their rights, and can protect himself by their want of notice.

JONES, in reply.

There was nothing in the title to deceive purchasers. There was sufficient evidence on the face of the deed to show that the possession was temporary. They all refer to the back line of Howsen’s patent; and every purchaser would necessarily enquire where that line was. Upon the enquiry he would find either that the line was in dispute and unsettled, or that it had been settled at north 17 degrees west.

The agreement was merely evidence of the nature of the possession, and was no more affected, in this respect, by the statute of frauds, than would be a simple declaration of the tenant, that he held not adversely to, but under, R. Alexander.

If the title is to be quieted, it must be upon the principle that long possession by certain metes and bounds, induces a presumption that some deed had been made conformable to the possession. But such a presumption is rebutted by the agreement.

March 12th.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

‘The being an application to restrain a person from the assertion of title in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the prayer of the bill ought not to be granted in a doubtful case; but if the case be a clear one, the interposition of equity is allowable; and the situation of the lend adjoining a growing city, the number of persons who are consequently interested in the settlement of the question, and the numerous titles which depend on it, give it peculiar claims to the attention of the Court.

By the laws which govern this case, a possession of thirty years under some circumstances, and of fifty years, under any, constitutes a title against all the world. The Appellee claiming under a possession perhaps from the year 1732, certainly from the year 1741, has a complete title, unless something can be alleged by the Plaintiffs in error which shall deprive him of the advantages of that possession.

It is urged that the contract of 1741, between the Alexander’s and the Dade’s, made the latter trustees for the former with respect to that portion of the land included in Berry’s survey, which they had agreed to surrender in the event of establishing a more western back line. And that, therefore, in computing time, we must commence with the sale from Parthenia Dade to William Hartshorne, in May, 1778.

Had the land continued in possession of Parthenia Dade and her heirs, the question whether this contract was of unlimited duration, or contemplated some particular suit then intended to be brought, would merit consideration. But as the contract does not appear on the title papers, but was verbal, a purchaser for a valuable consideration could not be affected by it unless he was a purchaser with notice. Finding Parthenia Dade in the quiet and undisturbed possession of four hundred acres of land, forming a parallellogram, limited on the west by the line north 6 west, he had a right to consider that line as established, so far as respected the land of Parthenia. He was not bound to know that a private parol agreement existed, which would control the possession. This trust therefore no more passed with the land to Hartshorne, than would any other secret trust of which he had no knowledge.

The various suits which have been instituted by, and against the ancestors of the Appellants cannot affect this cause, A suit not prosecuted to a decree or judgment is not constructive notice to a person not a pendente lite purchaser; and were the law otherwise, those suits, until that instituted in 1796, would convey no notice of the private agreement made in 1741. A knowledge of the suits therefore would not imply a knowledge of the trust; and possession for fifty years, though with knowledge of a better title, if adversary, constitutes a good defence against that title.

In 1796, Charles Alexander instituted a suit against sundry persons claiming the land in controversy for the purpose of altering the boundaries which had been held by Parthenia, and those claiming under her, from the year 1732, and which had been surveyed under an interlocutory decree made by the Court of Chancery, in the year 1741. In defending themseives against this claim, the purchasers of the land had a right to unite the possession of Parthenia Dade to their possession, without being affected by a secret trust of which they had no notice. If upon the trial of that suit a possession of fifty years could not have been established, and if the Court should have been of opinion that this was not a case in which an adversary possession of thirty years would have constituted a bar, the merits of the title would have been necessarily investigated. But if Charles Alexander had permitted that suit to be dismissed, and had filed a new bill, he would not have been at liberty, in the computation of time, to avail himself of the pendency of the former suit, unless he could have connected the two suits together. The law is the same where a suit terminates by abatement and is not revived, such a suit takes no time out of the act of limitations. The title of Pendleton therefore has from that act all the benefit which can be derived from a possession from the year 1741, when a possession ostensibly adversary by metes and bounds unquestionably commenced, to the institution of this suit in the year 1806. The deduction which the laws of Virginia make from all computations of time in consequence of the war of the revolution, will not be sufficient to take this case out of the act of limitations. The Appellees title, being secured by a possession of more than fifty years, is unquestionably good, and it is proper that the doubts which hang over it, should be removed. There is no error in the proceedings of the Circuit Court and the decree is affirmed.

The 1809-1814 case file can be found here: http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021 (Link to Library of Virginia – Chancery Court: Pendleton v. Alexander case of 1811 – depositions were transferred into this case from 1767 depos:
(p. 1-18: Petition, Answer, and costs sheet on 1809 case).
(p. 19-35: Additional Answers filed by Charles Alexander and wife Francis Alexander).
(p. 57-79: Various depositions taken in 1767 re case and land)
(p. 79-82: Charles Griffith’s deposition on May 8, 1767 is page 79 through 82 of link);
(p. 87: David Thomas’ depo on April 9, 1768 re Thomas Going)
(p. 94-96: Indenture of Parthenia Dade – daughter of Alexander – for land in dispute – describes one landmark as “Goings Gut” in description).
(p. 97-104: Indenture in 1771 Mouth of Goings Gut landmark in sale of property by Dade)
(p. 110-113: Lee Massey depo in Alexander case, depo taken in 1809 mentions Going Gut)
(p. 121-122: 1748 Act creating City of Alexandria – starts with sixty acres of land).
(p. 163-164: 1809 survey mentioning Going’s Gut).
(p. 176: 1767 Carlyle v Alexander case with judgment in 1771) – Admiral Seekright against Charles Alexander
(p. 178-185: Petition describing dispute in 1809 case description of allegations, Goings Gut again referenced).
(p. 187-189: 1776/77 Lee Massey release regarding the disputed land)
(p. 198-203: 1767 Pleadings in case against Charles Alexander and minutes of court and motion)
(p. 205-210: 1810 interrogatories and answers of George Griffin).
(p. 214-216: John Alexander’s questions and answers to depo Qs in 1809).
(p. 223-225: Record of case in 1771 and judgment against Charles Alexander).
(p. 226-227: Deed of Charles Alexander in 1778 re land with Prothenia Dade (Robert Alexander’s daughter)
(p. 228-229: Dick deed in 1790 re land).
(p. 230-233: 1790 and 1809 deeds re land in dispute).
(p. 234-237: Alexander case drawings of surveys done).

Depositions taken in the 1766-1771 case (These depositions were entered into evidence in the 1809-1814 case as well):  

1766 October (3d Monday Court in Fairfax Co, Va – beginning of case) – John Carlyle, Gent v. Charles Alexander. p. 233-239
Case Summary: … Aminidal Seekright by William Ellzey his attorney came and brought into the said Court there a certain bill against Timothy Dreadnaught in custody of a plea of tressass and ejectment of Farm and there are pledges of prosecuting to with John Doe & Richard Roe which bill follows in these words
… vizt Fairfax County towit – Aminidal Seekright complains of Timothy Dreadnaught in custody and a plea for that towit that whereas John Carlyle gentleman on the 21st day of May in the year of our Lord 1766 at the County aforesaid had demised granted and to Farm let to the aforesaid Aminidal one messuage or tenement with the appurtenances situate lying and being on Four Mile Run in the Parish of Fairfax in the County aforesaid containing 800 acres to have and to hold the messuage aforesaid with the appurtenances to the aforesaid Aminidal and his assigns from the aforesaid 21st day of May to the full end and term of 7 years from thence next ensuing and fully to be compleat and ended by virtue of which said demise he the said Aminidal afterwards towit on the 23d day of the aforesaid May entered into the tenement aforesaid with the appurtenances and was thereof possessed till the said Timothy afterwards towit on the day and year last mentioned at the County aforesaid with force and arms entered into the tenement aforesaid with the appurtenances in and upon the possession of the said Aminidal and the said Aminidal from his farm aforesaid. His said term therein being not yet ended yielded and amoved and the said Aminidal so yielded and amoved from his possession thereof held out and yet doth hold out and other enormities to the said Aminidal did then and there a contrary to the peace of our Lord the King his Crown and dignity and to the damage of the said Aminidal two hundred pounds Virginia currency and thereupon he brings this suit, etc.
… Sir I am informed that you are in possession or claim title to the premises this Declaration of Ejectment mentioned or to some part thereof and I being sued in this action as a casual ejector and having no claim or title to the said premises do advise you to appear at the next court to be held for the county of Fairfax on the 3rd Monday in October at the courthouse of the same county and then and there by a rule of that Court you cause yourself to be made Defendant in my stead otherwise I shall suffer judgment to be entered against mee and you will be turned out of possession. I am with great esteem your friend. Timothy Dreadnaught. To Mr. John Alexander tenant in possession.
… and at the same day came Robert Adam Sheriff of the said County and made return that he served this declaration in ejectment on John Alexander tenant in possession of the within mentioned land and thereupon Charles Alexander by Francis Dade his attorney came thereinto Court and prayed to be admitted Defendant in the room of the said Timothy Dreadnaught whereupon it is ordered by the Court with the consent of the attorneys for both parties that the said Charles Alexander be admitted Defendant instead of the now Defendant Timothy Dreadnaught who will immediately apear and receive a declaration and plea thereto the general issue and at the trial thereupon to be had the said Charles Alexander will appear in proper person or by his attorney and confess lease entry and actual expulsion and will insist only upon the title at the trial or that in default thereof judgment shall be entered against the Defendant Timothy Dreadnaught the casual ejector but further prosecution is to be staid against him untill the said Charles Alexander shall make default in any of the premises and by the like consent it is further ordered by the Court that the said Charles Alexander shall take no advantage against the Plaintiff for his not prosecuting upon the trial if occasioned by such default but that the said Charles Alexander will pay the Plaintiff his costs thereupon to be taxed and it is further ordered that the lessor of the Plaintiff be chargeable with the payment of costs to the defendant to be taxed or adjudged by the Court and the said Charles Alexander by Francis Dade his attorney comes and defends the force and injury when etc, and says that he is not thereof guilty and of this he puts himself upon the County and the said Plaintiff in like manner etc,
…therefore the Sheriff is commanded that he cause 12 free and lawful men etc, by whom the truth of the matter may be the better known to come hereon the 3d Monday in Sept next and who are not related either to the said Plaintiff or the said Defendant to recognize etc, make a jury of the Country between the said parties of the plea aforesaid because as well the said Plaintiff as the said Defendant have submitted themselves to the jury the same day is given to the said parties there etc,
… and now here at this day towit the 22d day of the said month in the year aforesaid Francis Dade moved to relinquish his appearance and issue entered yesterday for the Deft and to suffer the plaintiff to take the same Rule as if no appearance had been entered which the Court refused the same being opposed by the Plaintiff.
… and now here at this day towit the 15th day of December in the seventh year of the Reign of his present Majesty came the said Plaintiff by his attorney aforesaid and Phillip Alexander attorney for the said Charles Alexander offered an affidavit of the said Charles Alexander as he the said Philip offered to prove that he the said Charles knew there was an ejectment brought by the Sheriff against him and that he never employed Francis Dade as attorney to enter him Defendant which the court refused to hear being of opinion it was but of time and the proceedings thereof are continued between the said parties of the plea aforesaid and the Jury is respited between them before the said justices of the said County Court at the said County Court House until the 3d Monday in January next the same day is given to the parties aforesaid there etc,
… and now here at this day towit the 19th day of January in the year last mentioned came as well the said Plaintiff by his said attorney as the said Defendant by Phillip Alexander his attorney and because it is suggested to the Court that the bounds of the said land in the said declaration mentioned are in question by consent of the parties it is ordered that the surveyor of this County do go upon the land in controversy on the 23d day of February next if fair if not the next fair day and survey and lay out the lands in dispute having regard to all patents and evidences that shall be produced by either of the parties and report all matters of fact and evidences speciall to the next court and that he return to the Clerks office two platts of the said land before the day of hearing the same day is given to the parties aforesaid there etc.
… and now here at this day towit the 16th day of March in the year last mentioned came the parties aforesaid by their attorneys aforesaid and on the Defendants motion it is ordered that a dedimus be issued to take the Deposition of Guy Broadwater and the proceeds thereof are contained between the said parties of the plea aforesaid and the jury is respited etc. until the 3d Monday in April were
… and now here at this day towit the 24th day of March in the Eighth year of the Reign of his present Majesty came to the parties aforesaid by their attorneys aforesaid and the surveyor towit George West did return to the justices aforesaid a survey of the premises in dispute and his report thereupon and the proceedings thereof are further continued between the said parties of the plea aforesaid and the jury is further respited between them before the said justices of the said County Court at the said County Courthouse untill the 3d Monday in April next the same day is given to the parties there etc.
… and now her at this day towit the 20th day of June in the year last mentioned came the parties aforesaid by their attorneys and thereupon came also a jury towit Edward Payne, James Lain, William Linton, Samuel Tillit, Edward Dulin, Charles Brent, Robert Lindsay, William Halley Junr, Daniel Talbott, Abednego Adams, Gilbert Simpson Senr, William Brummet, who being elected tried and sworn to speak the truth upon the issue joind in this suit withdrew and by consent of the parties they are to adjourn to the house of Richard Arrell and be entertained at the expence of both parties and the Sheriff is ordered to attend the untill they agree on a verdict.
… afterwards towit the 24th day of the month and year aforesaid came the parties aforesaid by their attornies whereupon for certain reasons exciting as well the said justices as the said parties the said E.P. one of the above mentioned Jury is withdrawn from the panel and the rest of the jury are altogether discharged fro giving any verdict of and concerning the premises on condition of removing the cause to the general court by certiorari by consent of the parties notwithstanding the suit is at issue to receive a trial therewith the cause now depending between the said parties.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D997-X?i=102&cat=193246

1767 May 8th – Deposition of Owen Morris aged about 65 years. p. 264-268 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… Deposeth that he heard John Ball, William Harding, Moses Ball and James Robertson say that the hicory where the surveyor began to survey was the beginning of Thomas and Todd’s pattent and in particular that he heard the said John Ball say so about 13 or 14 years ago that from the said corner hiccory the surveyor run alon line of marked trees and found a marked corner – chesnut oak and that in runing the second course he run through the plantation of William Butsfield and ended on the outside of his fence where the trees were cut down and stuck down a stake.
… and this deponent further says that James Robertson about 3 years ago recovered the said Butsfields plantation from Robert Alexander part of which said plantation is included in the survey now made by the Plt for Thomas and Todds pattent.
… the deponent remembers that one Charles Story lived on the said plantation and if he was a tenant to any person this deponent thinks he must be a tenant to Gerrard Alexander and that from the north line to the said plantation is near a mile.
… that when Robertson recovered from Robert Alexander the said Alexander made no survey.
… the deponent also says that the marked corner white oak standing on the East side the lower long branch was shewn this deponent by James Robertson as his beginning tree but this deponent does not remember ever to have heard whether it was, or was not a corner of Thomas and Todd but finding no corner where the stake was stuck down the surveyor went the last metioned white oak and reversed two courses of Thomas and Todds pattent and came to the said stake.
… this deponent also attended when the defendant surveyed the North 17 degree west line from the hicory bush mentoned in Moses Balls depositions and found a thick line of marked trees as far as Four Mile Run which appeared to be antecedently marked and does not remember to have seen any tree in this line so small his thigh that was marked.
… This deponent being asked which was the most ancient marks the north or north 17 degree west line says he thinks no man can tell they both appear very ancient but this deponent see one tree upon the north line which appeared to marked long since the line in general.
… he allows there are more ancient marked trees up the north 17 degree west line but that there are some trees upon the north line appear as old as any upon the north 17 degree west line.
… that in running the north line the surveyor stop’t at the Long Branch and a marked corner hicory was discovered some distance to the left hand which the surveyor measured to and continuing the course a little further a white oak was found a little to the left hand marked as a corner which James Robertson agreed he marked as a direction to him how to take up land and from that whit oak quite to the end of the course no line trees were found except a line of marked trees which this course crossed and which were allowed to marked for James Simmond’s lease but at the end of the course the surveyro came very near to a marked white oak three chops on one side of this tree appeared fair and in the usual but if the other chops ever were marked on a survey they were not done in the usual manner.
… but this deponent thinks were done with a gouge and with a design to deface the said tree but this deponent did not look quite round the tree and does not know whether it be a corner tree or not as this deponent see no marked trees leading from it untill the surveyor came to a large marked beech standing on a little Run near the river.
… the Deponent says that a water or willow oak which the surveyor measured to on this survey was shewn by Hugh West Senior now dec’d about 13 or 14 years ago as the beginning corner of Stephen Gray and that there was formerly a tree at the mouth of Rockey Run was deemed to be the beginning of Strutfield’s upper pattent
… and James Green lived near a mile to the westward of the north 6 degree west line run on this survey at the request of the Plaintiff.
… the Defendant also says that the line found on the north 6 degree west course is much younger than either of the other two back lines.
… and this deponent heard the present JA(?) after John Alexander dec’d father to the present defendant to allow the said Alexander to go as farr as the north 6 degree west line, but the said Alexander refused it.
… this offer was made upon a survey made between Ramsay and the said Alexander
… and that near 40 years ago the stood a house where this deponent and Charles Griffith shewed the surveyro upon this survey upone the side of a hill but no person lived in it.
… and near that place there stands a house in which Robert King lived.
… and in the land now cleared by the Plaintiff above his mill there stood a hiccory marked which was cutdown by this deponent or Thomas Talbut near upon the North 17 degree west line.
… and not very far from the tree reputed to be Stephen Gray’s beginning being asked by the Plaintiff whether the river has not gained considerablyupon the land he answers that so far as he attended the surveying the meanders of River which was as low as the mouth of Four Mile Creek the River has in some places gained and in some places lost but whether it has gained or lost most he cannot tell and further saith not.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-W?cat=193246

1767 May 8 – Deposition of Charles Griffith aged 70 years p. 281-287(Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
Charles Griffith depo, aged 70 or thereabouts
… of Loudoun County, formerly of Stafford now called Fairfax County … between John Carlyle Plaintiff and Charles Alexander Deft, May 8, 1767 – sworn for the Defendant Charles Alexander …
… saith that about 43 years ago he was overseer for one Phillip Noland and that Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the present Charles Alexander came up from Boyeshole and called in at the said Nolands House when a conversation relative to the said Alexander’s land happened and the said Noland then told Alexander that one Robertson the Goings and several others had surveyed and taken up land within his great pattent, upon which the said Alexander seeming angry swore he would make them suffer and let them know his land run a great way further out than they imagined,
… he this deponent further saith that when Noland told Majr. Robert Alexander that the Goings were taking up and surveying his the said Alexanders land he the said Alexander replied to the said Noland that he had a great mind to turn the molatto rascals (who were then his tenants) off his land – and that he would (when he had a little time) survey his land and shew them how his land run …
… he this deponent further saith that about the latter end of the same year the aforesaid Noland and one Francis Awbrey had conversation about the said Alexanders land and he the said Noland then told the said Awbrey that he did realy believe that there was no vacant land thereabouts for that all the land from Great Hunting Creek quite up to Berchen tract of land was included in Alexanders great pattent and that he the said Noland never understood that there was any vacant land thereabouts for if there had been any it would certainly have been taken up before his the said Awbrey’s time
… he this Deponent further saith that about 42 years ago old Hugh West and he rode up to the inhabitants a little below the Lower Falls of Potomack and in this journey over Four Mie Run at the upper horse path they called in at a tenant on the side of a hill which the said West told him this Deponent was the land of Majr Robert Alexander and the said West who was then a Sheriff for Stafford or at least acted as one had precept to serve on the said tenant who the said West told him this Deponent was a tenant to Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the present Defendant
… he this deponent further saith that the said West went privately ot the the said house which was then entirely surrounded with trees except about three or four thousand corn holes that were cleared round the house which house is now down but stood as this deponent thinks very near the spot of ground shewn by Owen Morris and from this deponent to George West the surveyor
…he this deponent further said that from that house the said old West and he took a horse path North Westerly which went by the place John Alexander Junr now lives and from thence along a path near the said Robert Alexanders back line as he the said Hugh West told him this deponent over several Branches to the said inhabitants a little below the lower Falls of Potomack
… and this deponent saith that as he and Mr West rode along, he this deponent asked the said West if there was any vacant land thereabouts to which the said West replied there ws not any from Great Hunting along Harris’s line quite up to Brecken – as he the said West thought about this line the said West and he were crossing a branch which Branch the said West said was Brichins Branch and the said West then told him this Deponent that Majr Robert Alexanders and Brichins lines run into eachother as he the said West understood
… and that the said Deponent saith that old Mr West told him that from that place the said Robert Alexander’s land run down to the river to the Island called Mason’s Island
… this Deponent further saith that on their return they came down on the said Alexander’s river side tenants to Four Mile Run at the lowermost horse ford from which place they rode up four mile run by a mill to a house where one old Chubb and Lilliard lived at which place old Hugh West had some business
… he this Deponent further saith that West told him that the said house was on Majr Robert Alexander’s land which said house this Deponent saith was at or very near the place shewn by him John Summen and Charritee Noeson to George West the Surveyor.
… he this Deponent further saith that on his and Wests return from where Chubb and Lilliard lived as they were crossing the lower ford of Four Mile Run by the Fishing Stops he this Deponent asked how far Alexanders land run up the said Four Mile Run to which Mr West replied that he thought it was very near a mile up Four Mile Run to Majr Robert Alexanders back line grandfather to the present Defendant
… he this Deponent further saith that he well remembers that one old Colter and one Ballenger told him that from the Lower ford up Four Mile Run to Alexanders backline was near a mile.
… he this Deponent further saith that about forty three years ago he was in company with one Stephen Gray’s widow and one William Parker which Parker told him he was son to the said Widow and they told him that Stephen Gray had taken up a tract of land almost joining Majr Robert Alexander’s land was near against the end of Mason’s Island.
… and this Deponent further saith old Colo Mason father to the present one John Straughan, Richard Wheeler, Thomas Chapman, Peter Guin, John Musgrove and several other old standards whose names he does not at present recollect told him this deponent that the beginning of Alexanders land was opposite the said Mason’s Island formerly called My Lords Island upon the mouth of a Branch and that from that Branch it run into the woods two miles and better.
… he this Deponent further saith that old Peter Guin, Noland, John Musgrove and James Ball advised him particularly not to take up or concern with the land there abouts (which this Deponent wanted to do) for that all the land from Great Hunting Creek six or seven miles up a straight line quite to Brichins Branch was all included in Alexanders, Brichins, and Masons pattent. This Brichin as this Deponent things was a clergyman.
… he this Deponent further saith that he well remembers he was at a race in the same year where the Goings were who then had running horses and that the old people were talking about the Goings taking up Alexanders land and selling it to Thomas and Todd which land the old people then said was in Alexanders back line or at least the greatest part he well remembers that at the same time the old people said that as soon as Alexander should make a survey they would find it was in Alexanders land and that they would lose the greatest part of it.
… At the same time this Deponent saith the people was laughing and said if it were not for the Alexander’s land the Goings had sold to Thomas and Todd they said Goings would not be so lavish of their money of which they seemed to have a great plenty at that time.
… Being asked by the Pltf at what time it was that he rode with Mr Hugh West when he was Deputy Sheriff says that it was in the year 1726 or 1727 as well he remembers and then he was well acquainted with the neighborhood about Four Mile Run, and had been so about three years before that time. And hath constantly lived about Occoquan ever since, but never knew anything of the settlement made by Doctor Dunghill.
… This Deponent says that about the year 1743 he purchased three beeves of Thomas Whitford who then lived on Four Mile Run but he does not remember particularly where abouts his house stood either on the upper side of the run or the lower side but thinks it was on the upper side.
… he says soon after purchasing these Beeves Whitford came down to Belvois to cut stone and in conversation told this deponent he was afraid he should loose his land but this deponent understood or suspected it was for debt.
… the Deponent says that he knows nothing of the bounds of Alexanders land himself only as he has been told and further saith not.
Charles Griffith
Fairfax County May the 8th 1767.
This Deposition was taken and sworn to in the presence of the Plaintiff and the Defendants attorney before.
John West..
Wm Eayner..
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-L?i=125&cat=193246

1767 May 8 – Deposition of Gerrant Tramill aged 65 years p. 256-258 (pages 259-260 missing in Fairfas book – but found in Virginia Chancery index but name is Jerrard Trammell)(date in chancery record shows this deposition to be May 8, 1767).
… deposeth that about 40 years ago Doctor Dunghill settled upon the lands taken up by Evan Thomas and John Todd.
… this deponent understood that Dunghill lived there by purchase or consent from Todd altho this deponent hath not understood that the said Dunghill made no payment nor procured or ad any deed as he did not live on the lands more than a year or two if so long.
… and this deponent never hear of his making any sale or disposition of it.
… and some years after Dunghill’s settling on part of this land Even Thomas came and settled on the land near and below where the plaintiff’s Mill is now erected.
… and soon after Thomas began to settle on the said land he died but whether he moved his family up first this deponent cannot certainly remember but knows his widow and family lived there after his death.
… and that there was no settlement or improvements made on the above land before the above settlement made for Dunghill.
… and by Thomas this deponent understood that Thomas devised part of this land to two of his daughters who intermaried the one with Robert King and the other with Thomas Whitford.
… and Whitford and King continued to live on the said land in right of their wives untill they removed out of these parts altogether which this deponent thinks was about or upwards of 20 years ago.
… this deponent saith that Todd out lived Thomas several years for that the said Todd was living and came to acknowledge or convey lands in Stafford County about 13 or 14 years ago as this deponent was informed by a letter from Col. Mason.
… the Deponent saith he believes there never was any division made between Thomas and Todd for that when Todd removed away Thomas seemed to expect to enjoy the whole land.
… the deponent says that old Simon Pearson had a lease of part of Alexanders land and one Samuel Vaughdry was Pearsons Overseer.
… and the deponent saith that the said Vaughdry got a timber tree which is mentioned in the deposition of Henry Cullum taken between Ramsay and Alexander and Pearson was angry and said it was without the line of Alexander and upon the lands of Awbrey.
… being asked how far Dunghill lived above the line run by Jinnings for John and Gerrard Alexander saith he cannot tell but supposeth it to be half a mile or more.
… and after making that survey & running that line by Jinnings, Edward Mastersons mill was recovered by John and Gerrard Alexander as this deponent understood inconsequence of the said line run by Jinnings.
… the Deponent saith that the settlement made by Dunghill and Thomas was several years before Robert Alexander grandfather to the defendant dyed.
… the deponent saith that he claimed the chain when Jinnings run Alexander’s line and saw no line trees untill they got up to Buckings below Brickings Branch but when the surveyor turned and run towards Potomack River they saw a marked tree or trees which they took little notice of saying they were _________,
… he saith the long course stopped below Brickings Branch and then run below the said Buckings Branch down to the river below the mouth of the Wankapin Branch.
… this deponent saith that some time before old Robert Alexander’s death there stood a house above where John George Boucher lives and on the same plantation and James Ball was put into the said house by Alexander as this deponent understood.
… and Awbrey procured a warrant and had a jury and Awbrey was put in possession and the said Ball turned out.
… and Awbrey continued in possession from that time.
… and the land was thought to be awbreys until Jennings survey and then Jennings took and included the land within Alexanders claim.
… and after the suit was tried in consequence of that survey the said Alexander got possession as the deponent believes.
… This deponent saith that he doth not remember that Robert Alexander attended at the time when Ball was turned out of possession and is almost certain that the said Alexander did not attend.
… the said deponent saith that he thinks that the suit brought and which occasioned Jennings survey was for Alexander to recover land which Awbrey held by purchase from Todd and this deponent further saith not.
Gerrard Trammell.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-N?i=114&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Gerrard Trammell p. 301 (repeat of above)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-N?i=135&cat=193246

1767 June 1 – The Deposition of Thomas Coulter aged 65 years or thereabouts p. 274-276. (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index) …  taken in the ejectment in Fairfax County Court between Charles Alexander Defendant and John Carlyle Plaintiff says he was born on the land of Robert Alexander grandfather of the Defendant and left the said land about 40 years ago but has always lived in the aforesaid County and within (according to his belief) 10 or 12 miles of this disputed land and has always understood that the beginning of said Robert Alexander’s land was near the Wankapin Branch
… and further the Deponent says he always understood from the old people ever since memory that from the beginning of Alexanders land aforesaid to where head corner of the said Alexander stood was two miles and better into the woods.
… he further says he knows where Chubb lived and that from where the said Chubb lived he has always understood from the old people particularly from the said Chubb it was near a mile or half a mile up Four Mile Run to Alexander’s back line.
… he further says he well knew one Stephen Gray and the said deponent says that Stephen Gray told him that he had taken up a tract of land on the back of Alexanders line.
… he further saith that he well knew one Rigbey who intermarried with Evan Thomas’s widow as this deponent understood.
… he further saith that to the best of his rememberance about 35 years ago more or less he was at the house of the said Rigbey and upon asking whose land it was he lived on he say that either the man or the woman answered it was Majr. Robert Alexander’s land who was grandfather to the present Defendant.
… he saith that he alwasy understood that Lilliard and Chubb were tenants to Alexander.
… and further saith that they lived on the lower side of the mouth of Long Branch.
… he further saith that Rigbey lived on the upper side of Four Mile Run.
… he further saith that old Chubb told him that from where he lived it was near a mile or half a mile up Four Mile Run to Alexanders back line.
… he further saith that old Chubb told him relitive to how far Alexander’s land run up Four Mile Run and that one old Thomas Clapham and old Ballenger who are now dead told him relative to the beginning of Alexander’s land these people he recollects to have mentioned the affairs but does not call to mind any other.
… He this deponent being interogated by the Plaintif saith he does not remember to have heard Chubb say that Alexanders back line run by the said Chubs house nor is he certain whether Chubb said it was a mile or half a mile to the back line from his house.
… he says he has heard that Evan Thomas took up land or bought land some where but thought it had been below Four Mile Run.
… he does not know what became of the said land.
… he never heard of Alexanders recovering any part of it being asked whether he knew that part of Thomas’s land was sold to Mr. Nathaniel Chapman says he knows nothing about it.
… he says he knew Thomas Whitford but does not know where he lived.
… he further says he heard there was a dispute between John Alexander and Awbrey since the death of old Majr. Robert Alexander, but does not know what it was about.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-T?i=122&cat=193246 

1767 June 2 – Deposition of Thomas Graford aged about 64 years p. 240-241 (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index, but there his name is Thomas Crawford) being sworn a witness … deposeth and saith.
… that about three or four and thirty years ago William Thomas who was said to be son of Evan Thomas then decd and one William _____ were making improvements upon Four Mile Run on a plantation and soon after one Rigby who had maryed Thomas’s widow and all the family came up there and lived and continued to live there untill Rigby run away.
… and after his running away Mrs Rigby continued to live on the same plantation and this deponent understood in conversation with William Thomas that his father Evan Thomas had devised the said land part to him and part to his other children.
… and the said children viz two daughters intermarried one with Robert King and the other with Thomas Whitford who lived upon the same tract of land part of which they respectively claimed in right of their wives as he heard from them.
… and Mrs Rigby King and Whitford continued to live upon this land several years.
… and this deponent as understood by them they looked upon the land as their own property and were not accountable to any person for rent.
… Being examined by the Defendant he says that the title house which he understood was built by Evan Thomas for his family to live in stood near the house the widow Rigby lived in.
… he says where Mastersons Mill stood is within about 100 yards of the two poplars on Four Mile Run.
… He says from where the Doctor’s tract emptys itself into Four Mile Run is near a mile up the said Run from the said poplars and further saith not.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-X?cat=193246

1767 June 20 – Deposition of Michael Reagan p. 242 (deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index papers)
…this Deponent says he was told by Thomas and Todd and on Peter Guinn that the land belonged to them all three and this Deponent further saith that he allways undertood that the widow Thomas intermarried with one Rigbey and further saith not.
Michael Reagan
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-6?i=107&cat=193246

1767 June 29 – Deposition of William Gossom aged 69 years p. 239. (deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index)
… deposeth and saith that between 30 or 40 years ago Evan Thomas moved up and settled upon his land on Four Mile Run and built a small house for the reception of his family and dyed.
… and then this deponent went up and built a Tobacco house in which the said Thomas’s widow, who was this deponent’s sister, afterwards lived and married one Rigby.
… and this deponent’s sister continued to live on that plantation for several years.
… and that there was no settlement or improvements made on Thomas’s land before his settling there as above to the best of this deponents knowledge.
… and remembrance and during Mrs Rigby’s residence on the said plantation this deponent never heard of her meating with any interuption or having any dispute about her title.
… this deponent says one Doctor Dunghill claimed land out Thomas and Todd’s pattent about a mile above where Thomas had settled. That is to say about a mile higher up Four Mile Run. This land was claimed by the said Doctor by virtue of some contract with Todd as the deponent understood and further saith not.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D997-X?i=102&cat=193246

1767 June 29 – Deposition of John Summers aged upwards of 70 years p. 250-253 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancer Index)
… deposeth and saith that upwards of 30 years ago Evan Thomas came up and seated on Four Mile Run and on his own land as this deponent understood and soon died.
… and his widow and family came and lived on the same plantation for several years and held the land without any interruption.
… and about 2 or 3 and 20 years ago before which time Thomas Whitford and Robert King had intermarried with two of Thomas’s daughters and claimed part of the land.
… and when they were about to remove they sold the land they claimed to Mr. Hugh West for the use of Mr Nathaniel Chapman.
… this deponent says that he lived near where the Town of Alexandria is now situated many years ago. That is to say he settled there about 52 years ago and has never lived above seven or eight miles from the place ever since.
… and soon after he came up here to live he understood that Alexander’s back line crossed Four Mile Run very near Cubbs Mill and never heard that Alexanders claimed any further up Four Mile Run than Cubbs Mill untill the said Alexanders suit with Awbrey and others.
… he further says that the time he mentions above was sometimes called Alexanders back line and sometimes his North line.
… this deponent says Chubbs Mill was built by one Lilliard who died and Chubb married his widow and then the mill was called Chubbs mill.
… and both Lilliard and Chibbs were tenants to Alexander and lived on the East side the lower long branch.
… this deponent says that youn Lilliard near and on the upper west side of the long branch but lear’d no land except 100m for the house.
… and the said Lilliard lived there but a very short time.
… and this deponent never knew whether he paid rent to any person or no.
… this deponent believes he shewed the place or near it where the said house of young Lilliard stood to the surveyor on the survey between Alexander and Awbry.
… this deponent says that Doctor Dunghill was the first and Evan Thomas the second that settled on Four Mile Run above Four Mile Run above Chubbs mill and plantation.
… this deponent says that before the survey between Alexander and Awbrey which he attended he never knew that any person to the westward of the north line which run near Chubbs Mill ever was or acknowledged themselves tenants to Alexander.
… This deponent says that in making the survey of Simon Pearson’s land near where the Falls Church now stands he was with the surveyor and they began at a particular place and went round.
… and when the patent issued it called for a different beginning than that where the surveyor began.
… and this deponent says he understands that Alexander’s land runs as high up Potomack River as the Wankapin Branch.
… heard the Plaintiff say he would admit the said branch to be Alexanders beginning this deponent says on Jinnings survey the north line then appeared to be an old marked line.
… and this deponent follows the surveyor on this present survey along the said north line but saw no marked trees after the surveyor came to the white oak and hiccory till the end of the course and then ther was an old whit oak anciently marked on the south easterly side.
… the marks appeared regular like a land mark but the marks on the other side or sides of the said tree do not appear to be regularly marked as if done for a landmark nor can he tell whether the said tree was marked as a corner or not.
… The deponent says that he has heard the old neighbours say that Alexanders back line or north course run near Chubbs Mill and up the lower long branch.
… Being asked if he heard that old Marj Robert Alexander ever made a survey of his land answers that he never heard it to his knowledge for he removed from the River to the place where he now lives near 40 years ago which is seven or eight miles from the said back or north line tho its possible such survey might be made.
… and he not know it as he claimed no near it nor had any connection with any person concerned with it.
… he says he knows nothing of what happened relative to the disputed lands from 40 years ago till the dispute with Awbrey or that there was then any dispute about it.
… he does not remember whether the chops on the north line were closed up with the bark when Jinnings made his survey the deponent not expecting now to be asked such a question nor half the other questions that have this day been asked him.
… he further says that he saw no marked lines trees leading to or from the white oak at or near the head of the north line as he remembers.
… he also says that Chubbs Mill did not stand at the place the surveyor measured to but withon about 20 yards of it as well as he remembers and further saith not.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-J?i=111&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of John Summers aged 70 and upwards p. 303 (repeat of above)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-6?i=136&cat=193246

1767 June 29 – Deposition of William Gladin aged near 77 years p. 263 (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index)
… deposeth and saith that when Howson’s patent was about to be divided that John and Gerrard Alexander in company with one Capt Berry about 25 years ago began at a hicory on Hunting Creek and run a line and marked as they run by which line then made the said land was divided between all the claimants.
… and this deponent then understood it was the back line of the pattent but it was not marked before tha time and further saith not.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-R?i=116&cat=193246

1767 July 26 – Deposition of Guy Broadwater aged 90 years (Deposition in Virginia Chancery Index – missing in Fairfax Book – likely was on one of the missing pages of that book)
… saith that about 40 odd years ago as well as this deponent remembers Majr Robert Alexander came up with on Joe Berry in order to survey as he was informed by old John Straughan.
… and this deponent further saith that several years afterwards one old James Robertson desired him to survey a piece of land agreeable to a warrant and carried him this deponent into the woods to an old marked line tree which Robertson told him was on the North line as mentioned in Alexanders patent.
… and he this deponent saith he run the course agreeable to the warrant and saw no marked trees, he remembers he desired the said Robertson to mark the aforesaid tree as a corner, but does not remember whether he did or not.
… he likewise remembers that Robertson told him that notwithstanding Alexanders patent called for a north course still the said Alexander claimed north 14 west.
… He this deponent further saith that he has always heard that Alexanders beginning was at Wankapin Branch.
… He this deponent further saith that he has heard it sid in the neighbourhood that one Thomas Brummit son in law to old James Robertson burnt down a corner tree of Breckins land.
… He this deponent further saith that he understood the said land that Robertson desired him to survey was afterwards sold by the said Robertson to one Dowman and afterwards was got by the said Robertson from Dowman again.
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1767 June 29 – Deposition of Moses Ball aged about 50 years p. 276-281 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-J?i=123&cat=193246

1767 June 30 – Deposition of Osborn Talbot aged 43 years p. 270-273 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-G?i=120&cat=193246

1767 July 1 – Deposition of Sampson Darrell High Sheriff of Fairfax County aged 55 p. 292-294 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-P?i=131&cat=193246

1767 July 1 – Deposition of William Green aged 33 years p. 243-250 (Deposition also in Virginia Chancery Index, but name is William Greenwood)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-6?i=107&cat=193246

1767 July 1 – Deposition of Robert Boggess Sr aged 61 years p. 254-256 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-P?i=113&cat=193246

1767 July 1 – Deposition of John Frizzell aged 41 years p. 288 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… was chain carrier on a survey made by John Mauzey for John Alexander father to the present Defendant and that the said Mauzey began to survey a course which run about a quarter of a mile above where the Masterson’s Mill stoood and continued the same course very near to the place where the stake is now stuck up in Jinnings Corn Field … they found an old tree lying on the ground rotten which tree the said Mauzzey and company supposed to be the corner tree of the aforesaid course as the number of poles there ended … (down to the Wankapin Branch) … at the same time that he was at law with Awbrey and that he made the survey in order to see how his land laid and that the said Alexander said if he lost the dispute in the Country he would appeal to England the said deponent says that the survey was made 18 years ago this Fall coming … the tree was entirely rotten … the company conceited of the said surveyor John Alexander, Joe Bowling and one Savin whom he understood was an overseer to the said John Alexander he says he does not believe that there were any other people there tho there might possibly be and he does not remember to have seen any line trees on that survey …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-C?i=129&cat=193246

1767 – Townshend Dade called to give evidence, objected p. 261
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-H?i=115&cat=193246

1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Francis Awbrey aged 54 p. 261-263 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-H?i=115&cat=193246

1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Francis Ballenger aged 50 years p. 268-269 (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99Q-7?i=119&cat=193246

1767 Sept 25 – Deposition of Ferdenand ONeal aged 50 years p 289-291 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
… saith that he lived upon the now disputed land above Four Mile Run three years with one Whitford about 25 years ago … the said Whitford and one King who claimed part of the land in the dispute many times say that they were afraid the Alexanders would come in upon them they likewise told him that one old James Robertson had distroyed the corner tree of the said Alexanders land above Brickings Branch … the told him it was in order to secure a tract of land which he the said Robertson sold to one Downman … they told him that Alexanders would take away Chapmans quarter when ever he surveyed … that the said Whitford and King told him that when the heard the Alexanders were about to bring suits against the Awbreys and others that they were afraid that the Alexanders would find out that old James Robertson had distroyed their corner tree above Brichings Branch and that if they the said Alexanders did find it out they would take away part of their land … the said Whitford and king told him … they sold their land to old Hugh West (who is dead as he this deponent is informed) that the reason that induced them to sell to the said West was that they were afraid the Alexanders would find out the distruction of the above mentioned corner tree above Brichings Branch … they Whitford and King should loose part of their land … some short time after … West purchased from the said Whitford and King for Nathaniel Chapman … he carried the chain when Jinnings made the survey between the Alexanders and Awbreys and begun at a Hicory Stump shown by one Thomas West and Run a line which crossd the mouth of the Long Branch that goes into Four Mile Run … the company agreed that the markd trees on the said line belonged to old Francis Awbrey’s line … about 21 years ago … West bought the land of Whitford and King also the Long Branch mentioned … emptied itself in Four Mile Run some small distance above where one Chub and a Mill as the company said … witness travelled from Loudoun County 40 miles.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-C?i=129&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Jeremiah Hamton aged 50 or upwards p. 294-299 (Deposition is also in the Virginia Chancery Index)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-K?i=132&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of David Thomas aged 70 odd p. 299-301 * (Deposition also located in Virginia Chancery Index)
… the Deponent says that one Johnn Wilcoxon came over from Maryland about 45-46 years ago with an intention of taking up land and he reembers that one old Benjamin Talbert used to be often at Capt. Simon Pearsons about the time that Wilcoxon came over to take up Land the Deponent says that he heard the said Pearson tell one Thomas Going that he had been taken up land which he thought had been taken up before the said Thomas Going having first told Pearson that he the said Going had been taking up land the Deponent further says that Evan Thomas’s Family’s Plantation and Vines Plantation were different plantations and were some distance apart
… the Deponent being asked by the Plaintiff whether he knew that the land Going had been taking up was in that neighborhood answers he does not know …
… Being asked further by the Plaintiff whether Lilliard paid rent to Robert Alexander says he does not know for that Lilliard ran away a year or two after he had settled on the afsd Plantation
… He further says that Thomas’s family were not interrupted as he know of after their settlement on Four Mile Run, and that he understood by the said Family’s conversation that they pretended to hold as far as the Long Branch …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-S?i=134&cat=193246

1768 Apr 9 – Deposition of Benjamin Talbert aged 65 p. 303-310
… about 46-47 years ago he and one John Wilcoxon came over into Virginia and that the said Wilcoxon came over with an intetion of taking up land on the River and he applied to Capt Sion Pearson to shew him the back line of Robert Alexanders land grandfather to the present Defendant …
… at the same time towit about 46-47 years ago the said Pearson carried Wilcoxon and this Deponent to a hicory tree on Hunting Creek and told them that said Hiccory Tree was a corner tree of the said Alexanders land …
… they came opposite to the place where James Green lives ….
… Pearson told them that from the said white oak the line run to the Wankapin Branch …
… the aforesaid back line belonged to one William Strutfield … the said Strutfield had run a small part of his land inside of Alexanders land …
… about a year before Pearson shewed the aforesaid back line one Francis Ballenger who is now dead was with this deponent looking for their horses and they came across a line tree and afterwards one or two more all standing on the same line … Ballenger told them that the said line was the back line of Alexanders land … the said line ran over Brichins Branch to a corner tree …
… he further says that one James Going and Gabriel Adams came out as Pearson was shewing Willcoxon and told him the said back line and he remembers that Going at the same time agreed that Robert Alexander held to the back line which Pearson was showing …
… some were of opinion that Alexander would be allowed to hold to the said line and others were not as it gave Alexander more land than his papers mentioned
… he says that Tom Going confessed that Robert Alexander held to the said line but he was opinion that he would not be allowed to hold ore than his papers mentioned …
… says that James Going told Pearson of it had not been for the speeches and Pearson and some of the neighbors concerning the back line of Alexander they would not have sold their rights … this conversation happened some years after Pearson shewed …
… the deponent says that when the conversation happened between Pearson and GoingPearson told Going there was a difference between taking up and purchasing and Going told Pearson that if he had known as much before as he did now he would not have sold his right ….
… the deponent says he went to Thomas Going the day after Gray and he had been looking for the said bound tree which bound tree the Deponent says Gray and he could not find and upon his describing the place where they had looked for the said bound tree Going told him he had come damnable near to it and that he was surprised Gran and he did not find it and that if Gray would give him a Black Horse he possessed he would shew him the said bound tree which bound tree the deponent says the said Going told him this deponent stood above Brickens Branch …
… The Deponent says he told Thomas Going he was apprehensive the said bound tree was down and Going told him that it was not for that he had see the said bound tree above Brichens Branch about 10 days before and had his hand on it …
… about 30 large odd years ago … some marked trees that were on the line … by Mr George West Surveyor … he asked a man who lived over the Branch in the Old Fields near Chubb Mill … and the man answered that the Awbreys had been runing land a day or two … he further saith that Tom Going the day after Gray and this Deponent had been looking for the said corner told him he could find it the Darkest night that was, he further saith that the man who lived in the old field told him that he supposed the Awbreys had been marking the trees …
… he further saith that he has lived in the neighborhood about 8 years but has been acquainted in the neighborhood 50 odd years and lived about a mile and a half from the disputed land on the Maryland side and opposite to the land of the Alexanders…
… he frequently came over from Maryland to Virginia …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-6?i=136&cat=193246

1768 June 11 – Deposition of William Boylstone aged 66 p. 310-314
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-F?i=140&cat=193246

1768 June 11 – Deposition of Benjamin Sebastian aged 62 p. 314-328 *
… in the year 1731 he was imployed by Majr Robert Alexander grandfather to the Defendant to live in his Island as his overseer being the Island now held by Mr Phillip Alexander and this deponent lived there that year and was also imployd by the said Robert to receive his rents which the deponent did as far as lay in his power agreeable to a list delivered him by said Robert the names of the tenants being Judith Ballenger, James Going, Sarah Young, Sarah Amos below Four Mile Creek and Edward Chubb, Richard Middleton, William Boylstone, John Straughan, Adam Straughan, Edward Earpe and Richard Wheeler above the said creek where were all the tenants then living on the said Alexanders tract of land the bounds of which is now in dispute …
… as well as this deponent can remember that there was not at that time one tenant or house to the westward of the North line run on this survey except one small logd house side to be built by one John Lilliard who wa son-in-law to Chubb and before that time had lived with the said Chubb as this deponent understood by the neighbours …
… Deponent knows not where this deponent lived the year following with John Staughan and the year after that this deponent became a tenant to Alexander on promise of a lease which this deponent never got from said Alexander in his life, but after his death got a lease from Gerrard Alexander son to the said Robert to whom that part of the said land was divised by virtue of which lease this deponent now holds the plantations and lived thereon and in the neighborhood near 38 years …
… deponent never knew any of them to have any tenants on the west side of the North line run by the surveyor on this survey till one Robert Mills became a tenant to Gerrard Alexander tome time after the recovery made in the General Court by John and Gerrard Alexander agt Nathaniel Chapman, Awbrey and others and the land so least to Mills lay some part within the North line but the greatest part of it to the westward of that line …
… the deponent says that when John and Gerrard Alexander brought the first ejectment against Champan, Awbrey, etc, in the General Court they imployed John Mercer to prosecute the same as the informed this Deponent and this deponent served the ejectment on the person in possession among whom was one Mark Thomas overseer for Chapman …
… but when Mercer understood that Chapman was concerned he informed the Plaintiffs in that suit that he could not prosecute it against Chapman as he had been long retained or concerned in all said Chapmans business whereupon they rather than contend with Chapman or give up the said Mercer to plead the cause against them they agreed and gave Chapman their bond to reconvey to him whatever land they should take from him by their recovery in that suit all which was agreed to by Chapman and Mercer and Chapman declined making and defence as the said John and Gerrard Alexander informed this deponent and they recovered judgment in that suit against the several Defendants … for which Chapman was greatly complained of by some of the other Defendants who depended greatly on his management in the cause ….
… the Deponent says that ssometime in the Spring of the year 1733 Evan Thomas and his son William Thomas and one William McHoney came to Four Mile Run and settled and began to make a plantation on the North side of the said run and on the west side of the lower long branch and build one small logg’d house at which time there was not any other house on the land now claimed by the Plaintiff … except the small house said to be built by Lilliard as afsd that Evan Thomas soon after died and his widow removed up & maryed one Hugh Rigbey a shoe maker who after they built other houses made use of the logd house for a shop and continued to live there for several years …
… and this deponent never understood they or any of them were lookd upon themselves as tenants to the Alexanders but on the contrary has heard the said Evan Thomas in his lifetime say that Alexander had not any title to go further westward than the north line …
… Thomas had taken up his land jointly with one John Todd who survived him and it was never divided as this deponent heard of…
… some time in the year 1741 John and Gerrard Alexander, Philip Alexander of Stafford County, Bauldwin Dade and Townshend Dade were about to divide the said land agreeable to the will of Robert Alexander decd and got one Joseph Berry a surveyor to divide it …
… this deponent was with them and carried the chain … they run from Hunting Creek N 6 to divide by Gerrard Alexander and John Straughan marked a line after the surveyor did not run out the full number of poles because he did not run so far as the surveyor did on the present survey and it was agreed that the division then made should not be binding or conclusive of their back or north line exept the part of Phillip Alexander which lay off all within the due north line …
… he further saith that Gerrard Alexander in the year 1743 being a divised that his land was intailed resolved to try if he could dock the initial and procured a writ for that purpose and imployed on Robert Boggess to manage the matter for him and gave him a double loon as he Alexander informed this deponent …
… the day before the writ was executed John Alexander came up from Stafford and joined in the matter to have the intail of both their lands docked … (continues on pg 319) …
… the deponent being interogated as to Robert Boggess’s character says he thinks he is a bad man and is confirmed in his opinion by Boggess’s behaviour in a dispute between him and this deponent about four or five years ago when the said Boggess upon oath denyed many fees which this deponent had charged him with denying at the same time that there ever were such suits when the records and proceedings in those suits clearly manifested the contrary and the said Boggess then proved articles or charges in account against this Deponent which were disproved by a disinterested evidence so that this deponent thinks the said Boggess forsworn himself in many different instances in that settlement and this deponent thinks the referees who settled that account will also prove it …
… the deponent remembers there was a difference between Majr Robert Alexander in his lifetime and James Robertson account of Alexanders holding or pretending to hold three or four thousand acres of land more than his pattent specified which Robertson looking upon to be surplus land gave Alexander notice to enter it or he Robertson would do it as this Deponent was informed by Majr Alexander in his lifetime by his son John and by John Straughan who had lived long on the land as a tenant …
… but when Robertson found that Howsons pattent which Alexander claimed did not include all the land which Alexander pretended to claim he Robertson entered and took up part of it as was and Evan Thomas and John Todd had taken up part of it before and Francis Awbrey took almose all the residue being along Alexanders north line as near as they could which land so taken up by Thomas and Todd is now claimed by the Plaintiff and the said Thomas or Todd or those claiming under them hath always been in actual possession of it from the year 1733 to this time except the part recovered in the ejectment of Alexanders against Chapman, Awbrey, and others that James Robertson had run a small distance within Alexanders north line and took in about 30 acres of Alexanders land and sold one hundred and ninety five acres out of this tract to Capt Simon Pearson who devised it to his daughter Susanna who intermarried with John Alexander the Defendant’s father, who finding out that part of it lay within the north line of Howsons pattent sued Robertson in the General Court and recovered damages about L15 for so much of land as lay within the north line and did not eve pretend to ask damages for any more altho the whole 195 acres lay within the North 6 degrees west line by which the Alexanders divided …
(Continues on with evidence doubting the line extending to 17 degrees which is what the Alexanders claimed from pg 324-328)
… 20 odd years ago Ferdenando Oneal in a conversation with this deponent confessed that he was convicted for perjury and transported for that offence into this country …
… Deponent is very much surprised that Benjamin Talbot should know or pretend to know so much of the lands … as this deponent who has lived so long upon the land never heard of him till within this 3 or 4 years and never remembers to have seen him in his life to know him from any other man …
… the deponent says the entry made by Gerrard Alexander was after his suit brought against Awbrey …
.. he served the ejectment mentioned in the former part of his deposition on one Joseph Dorsey who lived below Four Mile Run upon the plantation now occupied by one Reedy and that the ejectment was also served upon several other persons who resided on the lands in this dispute & understood by serving that ejectment that ejectment that the Alexanders claied to the north 17degree west line that about 10 years ago this deponent made an entry in the proprietors office for 400 acres of land between the north 17degree west line of Alexander and the lines Robertson and Col Mason who claims Owsley’s pattent and having let the said Entry lye so long in the office this deponent was obliged in the month of Sept 1766 to renew it and obained a warrant and in July last he sold it to James Muir in trust for Robert Adam and John Carlyle the present plaintiff by assigning over his right of the said warrant …
… Straughan has often told this deponent that he thought that Alexander had not any right to go so far to the westward as their pattent did called for a north course …
… he further says that he understood that Awbrey who claimed Strutfields pattent by purchase was never interrupted till about one year ago by Col George Mason since he surveyed Owsley pattent under which he claims the deponent says that the surveyor in running the north 2degree west line from a hicory bush on Hunting Creek was to the westward of th marked trees and so angled them …
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D993-9?i=142&cat=193246

1768 – Deposition of (witness objected to) p. 328
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK4-D99X-S?i=149&cat=193246

1809 May 8th – Deposition of Rev. Lee Massey aged 76. (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1809 case – exact date uncertain – Deposition of Col. Francis Payton aged 44 years or thereabouts.
(about 2 and 1/2 pages then cut off)(Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1809 July 24 – Deposition of Col John Alexander aged upwards of 20 years
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1810 May 28 – Deposition of Ignatious McFarling (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

1810 – Deposition/Interrogatories of George Gilpin (Virginia Chancery Index – deposition in Parthenia Dade v Alexander case)
http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021

MAPS OF THOMAS GOWING PROPERTIES:

The 1215 acres at issue are noted on the following maps (click maps/images to enlarge):

arlington-county-land-owner-map-1669-to-1796-including-going-lands-1215acres-652acres-and-653acres-marked

arlington-county-land-owner-map-1669-to-1796-including-going-lands-1215acres-652acres-and-653acres-marked

fairfax-map-1760-marked1215acres to Thomas, John, William, and James Goin -653acres to Thomas Going -652acres James Going

fairfax-map-1760-marked1215acres to Thomas, John, William, and James Goin -653acres to Thomas Going -652acres James Going

The Alexander case eventually was decided by the US Supreme Court – with Chief Justice John Marshall issuing the Court’s opinion against the Alexander family.  https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/12/12.US.462.html .

In a 1774 case that dragged on until 1811 (between Charles Alexander and his aunt Parthenia Alexander Massey Dade – Robert Alexander’s daughter), a transcribed copy of Charles Griffith’s 1767 deposition was introduced (both cases involved basically the same litigation – that Charles Alexander was claiming land beyond his patent). Charles Griffith gave testimony on behalf of Charles Alexander – that Thomas Gowing (and his sons) had wrongfully obtained a grant for land that Charles Alexander was claiming encroached on his grandfather’s estate (which Charles had inherited).  Charles Griffith stated that he heard the grandfather of Charles Alexander, (Robert Alexander), state the following regarding the Going family:

This deponent being first sworn for the Deft Charles Alexander saith that about 43 years ago he was an overseer for one Philip Noland . . .  ”

“Noland then told (Robert) Alexander that one Robertson the Goings and several others had surveyed and taken up land within his great patent upon which the said Alexander seemed angry swore he would make them suffer and let them know his land run a great way further out than they imagined.  He this deponent further saith that when Noland told Majr. Robert Alexander that the Goings were taking and surveying his the said Alexanders land, he the said Alexander replied to the said Noland that he had a great mind to turn the mulatto rascals who were then his tenants off his land and that he would when he had a little time survey his land and show them how his land run.”  . . . 

“He, this Deponent, further saith that he well remembers he was at a Race in the same year where the Goings were [who then had running horses] and that the old people were talking about the Goings taking up Alexander’s land and selling it to Thomas and Todd which land the old people then said was in Alexander’s back line or at least the greatest part. He well remembers that at the same time the old people said as soon as Alexander should make a survey, they would find it was Alexander’s land and they would loose the greatest part of it, at the same time this Deponent saith the people were laughing and said if it were not for Alexander’s land the Goings had sold to Thomas and Todd they, the said Goings would not be so lavish of their money of which they seemed to have a great plenty at that time, being asked by the Pltf. at what time it was that he rode with Mr. Hugh West when he was Deputy Sheriff. He says that it was in the year 1726 or 1727 as well as he remembers . . .

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021 (237 pages of 1809 case, including copies of depositions taken in 1767 and 1768 in the Alexander cases regarding the Howson patent).

 (see transcript of Charles Griffith introduced in one of the cases below): 

1767 Charles Griffith depo p1

1767 Charles Griffith depo p2

1767 Charles Griffith depo p3

1767 Charles Griffith depo p4

1767 Charles Griffith depo p5

1767 Charles Griffith depo p6

1767 Charles Griffith depo p7

There are several problems with the testimony of Charles Griffith:

a) Robert Alexander never brought any action against the Going family for the land.  Nor did he or any of his heirs take action against anyone else that took possession of that land afterward for that matter.  No action was taken until 1767 some 57 years after it had been sold in 1710 to the Goings, some 48 years after Thomas and Todd took possession of it, and some 40 years after these conversations Mr. Griffith says he heard).  And the action that was taken was against Charles Alexander for trying to take land that didn’t belong to him.  Not the other way around.

If Robert Alexander actually knew people were taking his land, and he was as angry about it as Charles Griffith appears to be relating in his 1767 deposition, it seems he would have done something about it back in 1710 when the Going family received the grant, or in 1719 when they sold the land to Thomas and Todd, or in 1727 when this alleged conversation took place that Charles Griffith supposedly overheard.  Trespass and ejectment suits were common back then.  You did not want to lose land by adverse possession.  You paid rents to the crown for land you owned, and you were required to produce on your property, or it would go back to the crown – so they could grant it to someone else who would produce on the land.   If you were paying rents (taxes basically) and producing on land, you did not want others coming onto the land and taking the resources from you.

b)  Another problem with Griffith’s story is that the Going’s had sold the property by 1719 to Thomas and Todd.  Griffith says these actions and conversations he heard all happened in 1727-28, when he was a deputy with Hugh West.  Griffith goes on to say that he moved into the area about 3 years before that (1724 – 1725).   Again, the Going family had sold the tract to Thomas and Todd in 1719 – some 5-6 years before Griffith moved into the area, and the conversations he says he “overheard” took place some 8-9 years after the Going’s had sold the property.  In fact, two of Thomas Going’s sons (the four Goings were joint owners of the land) had already died before these supposed “conversations” and “horse racing” that he allegedly saw/heard about in 1726/27.  John Going died in 1721, and William Going died in 1725.   Thomas Going was probably close to 70 years old by 1726-27 (if he was still alive).  The only Going that owned that property that was alive and could still be able to race horses would have been James Going, who would have been in his mid to late 40s.

c)  The lawsuits filed were actually against Charles Alexander for him encroaching on other people’s land, not the other way around.  Charles Alexander inherited the estate and started trying to plant tenants on property that according to the courts that heard the cases, did not belong to him.  The suits were ejectment lawsuits by a Mr. Carlyle decided in 1771, and by Charles Alexander’s own aunt Parthenia Alexander Massey Dade in 1774.  Then an 1806 case involving multiple people who purchased some portion of the land in question.  The jury found against Charles Alexander in the 1771 case, where Charles Griffith testified, at least by deposition.   The US Supreme Court found against the heirs of Charles Alexander in the 1806 case.  https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/12/12.US.462.html

Charles Griffith’s witnesses testimony does not appear to have been believed – at least by those who heard it back in the 1767-1771 case.  His testimony sounds like an embellishment used to emphasize “how mad” Robert Alexander allegedly was when he found out about the Going surveys – not to indicate actual skin color.   It could be seen as their skin color, but without any other documents showing Thomas, John, William or James Gowing were black or mulatto, it seems more of a derrogatory statement, meant to demean their character at the time.  They may have been mixed race “mulatto” at the time, but it was not an issue that was noted in their many business transactions, land deals, or court cases at the time.  It appears that, if they were seen as mulatto, they were respected enough in the community that this was not even noted in court records back in the 1680s to 1740s.  The first time it was brought up was in 1767, long after they had left the area.          (see the following links for background to the Howson Plat dispute):

(p. 1-18: Petition, Answer, and costs sheet on 1809 case).
(p. 19-35: Additional Answers filed by Charles Alexander and wife Francis Alexander).
(p. 57-79: Various depositions taken in 1767 re case and land)
(p. 79-82: Charles Griffith’s deposition on May 8, 1767 is page 79 through 82 of link);
(p. 87: David Thomas’ depo on April 9, 1768 re Thomas Going)
(p. 94-96: Indenture of Parthenia Dade – daughter of Alexander – for land in dispute – describes one landmark as “Goings Gut” in description).
(p. 97-104: Indenture in 1771 Mouth of Goings Gut landmark in sale of property by Dade)
(p. 110-113: Lee Massey depo in Alexander case, depo taken in 1809 mentions Going Gut)
(p. 121-122: 1748 Act creating City of Alexandria – starts with sixty acres of land).
(p. 163-164: 1809 survey mentioning Going’s Gut).
(p. 176: 1767 Carlyle v Alexander case with judgment in 1771) – Admiral Seekright against Charles Alexander
(p. 178-185: Petition describing dispute in 1809 case description of allegations, Goings Gut again referenced).
(p. 187-189: 1776/77 Lee Massey release regarding the disputed land)
(p. 198-203: 1767 Pleadings in case against Charles Alexander and minutes of court and motion)
(p. 205-210: 1810 interrogatories and answers of George Griffin).
(p. 214-216: John Alexander’s questions and answers to depo Qs in 1809).
(p. 223-225: Record of case in 1771 and judgment against Charles Alexander).
(p. 226-227: Deed of Charles Alexander in 1778 re land with Prothenia Dade (Robert Alexander’s daughter)
(p. 228-229: Dick deed in 1790 re land). (p. 230-233: 1790 and 1809 deeds re land in dispute).
(p. 234-237: Alexander case drawings of surveys done);

See also:
https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/historic/info/archaeology/SiteReportSipeJamesBlandHomesDocumentaryAX211and212.pdf (pages 23, 38, 79-82).

(Transcription of Copy of Charles Griffith deposition that was introduced in the case between Parthenia Alexander v. Charles Alexander:  1767 Charles Griffith depo in Carlyle v Alexander MARKED .   Copies of other 1767-1768 deposition that were also introduced in the 1779-1811 case:  1767 various depositions regarding case in 1767 that were taken .  http://www.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=013-1811-021 – Link to Library of Virginia – Chancery Court:Pendleton v. Alexander case of 1811 – depositions were transferred into this case from 1767 depos)

II.  Ancestry/Immigration of Thomas Gowing family:

It is possible Thomas Gowing was the original immigrant for this branch of the Gowing family (see Thomas Going from Maryland below).  It is also possible that he was born in America, and that his ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc), were the original immigrants for his branch.  There is some evidence that the original immigrant was a John Gowing who arrived in Virginia around 1635 and appears to have moved to Maryland about 1640-50, and then was transported back to Virginia in 1650 (crossing the Potomac River).

Who are Thomas, John, William, and James Gowing’s ancestors?:

Strong Candidates:

There are a several possible ancestors that have Gowen, Going, Gowing type names:

Going families appearing to have Virginia and/or Maryland connections: 

(As is shown by John Hallowes b. 1612-15, those who lived along the Potomac River appear to have moved back and forth from the Northern Neck of Virginia to Maryland often.  It makes sense as the river was a major way to get from point A to point B.  Crossing from one side of the Potomac to the other would not have been difficult, and in fact, would likely make it easier for trade and moving product.  The following Going’s have been identified as those who appear to be near the Potomac, or Chesapeak Bay in Maryland, so possible candidates for ancestors of Thomas Going b. 1660).

1) On Sept 28, 1635, a John Gowing was transported by Thomas Crompe to land near Richard Buck (who lived near James Town, Va).

1635 snip of John Gowing transp to Va by Crompe

http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/LO-1/001/201-300.html

1635 snip of John Gowing to Va transcribed 1 1635 snip of John Gowing to Va transcribed 2

http://interactive.ancestry.com/48408/CavaliersPioneers-005066-577?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2fsearch%2fdb.aspx%3fdbid%3d48408%26path%3d&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnBrowsing#?imageId=CavaliersPioneers-004513-31

2)  Oct 18, 1650  John Goane was transported by Walter Broadhurst to the Americas among 10 people total. They were settled on Conawoman Creek – located in Westmoreland County, Virginia. – Phonetically, this name is even closer to Gowen/Gowing, and again, is on Canawoman Creek, in Westmoreland County, Va. Again, where Thomas Gowing shows up in court records in the 1690s.  (Note:  This page for John Gowing/Goane is likely multiple John Gowings – but appear to possibly be from the same line – it appears according to the records this John Gowen may have moved to nearby New Kent County, Charles City County, or Gloucester Co, Virginia – unfortunately the records in many of these counties are missing).    http://interactive.ancestry.com/48408/CavaliersPioneers-005066-577?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2fsearch%2fdb.aspx%3fdbid%3d48408%26path%3d&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnBrowsing#?imageId=CavaliersPioneers-004685-199

In 1679 – Goane, John WC2:167,169 Film No: Transported to Maryland 1679 MSA SC 4341- http://earlysettlers.msa.maryland.gov/

3) Thomas Gowen transported to Virginia in August 1635 on the Globe.  https://archive.org/stream/originallistsofp00hottuoft#page/118/mode/2up

4) April 14, 1653, William Gowin arrived in York County, Va, near the head of Ware Creek.  http://interactive.ancestry.com/48408/CavaliersPioneers-005066-577?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2fsearch%2fdb.aspx%3fdbid%3d48408%26path%3d&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnBrowsing#?imageId=CavaliersPioneers-004744-257

5) Thomas Going est. b. abt 1640 – transported to Maryland in 1671.  (SERNO: S11. LAND OFFICE (Patent Record)#16, p. 135 Thomas Going, 1671 [MdHR 17,350, 1-23-1-21]. 06/02/92. Tracking No.: 17596. Circ. No.: 6395.) (NOTE:  This may be the same Thomas Going of Westmoreland Co, Va and Stafford Co, Va – he may just be about 10 years older than previously estimated.  There is some evidence that this may well be the same person – see Esau Going in MD with Thomas Going, and then in Westmoreland Co, Va with Thomas Going).  See:  http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/refserv/quickref/html/photodup.html

Name: Thomas Going;  Arrival Year: 1671;  Arrival Place: Maryland Source Publication Code: 8510;  Primary Immigrant: Going, Thomas.  Annotation: Index from manuscript by Arthur Trader, Chief Clerk in the Maryland Land Commission, 1917. And see nos. 4507-4511, Land Notes.  Source Bibliography: SKORDAS, GUST, editor. The Early Settlers of Maryland: an Index to Names of Immigrants, Compiled from Records of Land Patents, 1633-1680, in the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1968. 525p.  Repr. 1986. Page: 185; http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gss=angs-g&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=Thomas&gsfn_x=0&gsln=Going&gsln_x=0&MSAV=1&msbdy=1640&cp=0&catbucket=rstp&uidh=m37&pcat=ROOT_CATEGORY&h=1347524&recoff=3+4&db=pili354&indiv=1&ml_rpos=17

6) In 1672 – Esau Goeing est. b. abt 1640.  17:376 Film No: Husband of Ann, service by 1672 MSA SC 4341- Goeing, Ann 17:376 Film No: Wife of Esau Goeing, service by 1672 MSA SC 4341- http://earlysettlers.msa.maryland.gov/

7)  Christopher Gowen b. abt 1649 – indentured servant in York Co, Va in 1674 at 24 yrs of age during depo, later married to wife Anne, son Michael b. 1679 in Abdington Parish, may possibly be father of Philip Gowen b. abt 1682 as well.

8)  Michael Gowen (or Mihill Gowen), b. abt 1630.  Given freedom by Amy Barnhouse, had a son by Prossa who remained a slave, sons name was William – who was given freedom along with Mihill.  James City County, Va (lawsuit in York Co, Va – see page).

See following links for additional research that has been done on the Goyen/Goyne family.

1) Carroll H. Goyne, Jr:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GOWEN/2001-07/0994197255 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GOWEN/2002-02/1014656685

2) The Gowen Manuscript: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/nl199111.pdf

3) The Gowen Manuscript: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/Gowenms133.htm

4) Gowen Manuscript: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/gowenms002.pdf

(See page on various Thomas Goings in the VA, NC, SC areas in the 1700’s and early 1800’s:  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/various-thomas-going-people/ ).

Hollis and Going family connection:

(Note:  John Gowing and John Hallowes – or their descendants – may have had a family relationship.  The Going and Hollis families appear to have lived in the same counties from possibly 1640 to 1840 (possibly up to 200 years).  They are documented to have been in eachother’s deeds, wills, probate, etc, and lived in the same counties for at least 100 years – 1739 to 1840.  If John Gowing and John Hallowes are ancestors of William Going b. 1682 and John Hollis b. 1700, then it is actually about 200 years they lived near each other.

See page for John Hollis b. 1700.  There is no direct evidence John Hollis b. 1700 is a descendant of Maj. John Hallowes b. 1612-15, but there is circumstantial evidence.  John Hallowes dies in 1657 with at least 3 male children (possibly more).  His son William Hollis has been shown to have several children of his own, one of his line goes to Delaware, the others in his line appear to stay in the Maryland/Virginia areas.

In Y-DNA testing, descendants of two different sons of John Hollis b. 1700 (James and Moses), match descendants of William Going b. abt.  1682.  In fact, at this time, all descendants of William Going b. abt 1682 and John Hollis b. 1700 who have published their Y-DNA results match each other.

The significance of this is that John Hollis b. 1700 would have that same Y-DNA as his two sons (if two different sons of his have that same Y-DNA – its highly unlikely two different Going men had affairs with Moses’ wife and conceived all his children, and then did the same with James Hollis’ wife).

Due to  the age difference in William Going b. abt 1782 and John Hollis b. 1700, John Hollis could be a biological son of William Going or one of his brothers out of Stafford Co, Va, but, it could be the other way around, maybe the Going brothers/family were the biological sons of one of the Hollis/Hallowes men from further back.

There are some Hollis researchers who claim John Hollis b. 1700 came over from England to the Americas in 1740, as there is a record of a John Hollis arriving in 1740.  The problem with this is that there is a record of John Hollis posting bond on Catherine Padderson’s will in 1739 (this is William Going b. 1682’s widow who had remarried).

Additionally, it does not explain the matching Y-DNA between the Hollis and Going families.  If both James Hollis and Moses Hollis (sons of John Hollis b. 1700) have descendants with Y-DNA that match descendants of William Going b. 1682, then that means John Hollis b. 1700 has that same Y-DNA, and since the Going men and the Hollis men all have connections with Stafford Co, Va – it is most likely that the “mixing” of these two families occurred some in 1700 (when John Hollis b. 1700 was born), or before that date.

Thomas Going was documented in Virginia since 1693 when he was involved in a lawsuit with Abraham Smith for Defamation in Westmoreland County, Virginia.  John Going, William Going, and James Going were all listed in the militia of Stafford County, Virginia in 1701/02 as dragoons.

It is possible that the Hollis and Going families lived in the Northern Neck of Virginia and Maryland (both along the Potomac River dividing Maryland and Virginia).  Both families have records of people being “marriners” (John Hallowes b. 1615 and Thomas Going b. 1660 and John Going b. 1700).  It would not have been difficult for them to move up and down the Potomac and Chesapeak Bay doing business along the water ways and finding land along the water.

There is a record of a John Gowing arriving in James County, Virginia in 1635.  In 1638 John Hallowes (this is likely the father of Maj. John Hallowes) purchased land in Charles County, Virginia, adjacent to James County, Virginia.  In 1640 John Hallowes sells his land in Virginia and appears back in Maryland.  It is unknown what happened with John Gowing during this time, but the next time his name is seen is in Maryland.

In January 1650 John Hallowes transports himself from Maryland to Northumberland County, Virginia on the mouth of Canawoman Creek (in Nomini Bay).  In October 1650, Walter Broadhurst, a friend and neighbor of John Hallowes, transports John “Goane” (Gowing) from Maryland to Northumberland County, Virginia – “on the mouth of Canawoman Creek” (in Nomini Bay).  Among those also transported by Walter Broadhurst were William Hardigg, Robert Beard, Ann Knowles, Hump. Farmar, and John Piper, all who were residents of Maryland who had several dealings with John Hallowes b. 1615 shown on this page above.   This was a transport of people from Maryland’s colony, to Virginia’s colony, meaning those people listed as being transported had been living in Maryland prior to this transport.

This is at least some evidence that there was likely contact between Going and Hollis families prior to 1700.  These families may have lived near each other starting some time between 1640 to 1650 until 1740 in the Northern Neck of Virginia and Maryland during this time period.    Since there was a “non-paternal” event that mixed the two families Y-DNA at some point, this likely occurred some time between 1640-1700 in the Northern Neck of Virginia and Maryland.

(See Y-DNA results:  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/hollis-family/ ).

Y-DNA Additional Notes:  Y-DNA for Going/Goin/Goyne, etc families descended from Thomas Going is E1b1a – meaning Sub Saharan Africa.  It is unknown if Thomas Going – or his parents, were considered African, or “mulatto” at this time – there are a couple records that “may” indicate this, but they are not clear.  Most of the records do not mention his or his children’s race.  Three possibilities exist for why they were mostly not notes as black or of African ancestry:  

1) The Going family came from overseas to the Americas appearing to be white due to many generations of living in white communities in Europe (despite the E1b1a Y-DNA), or arrived as a mixed race appearing European due to living in European communities for many generations  (Here is a discussion on mixed race people in Europe who may have arrived in the Americas):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_admixture_in_Europe.

2) The “Going” paternal ancestor of African origin came over to the Americas in the very early 1600s as an indentured servant – or possibly working on a ship as a ships-hand of some sort – was freed from his service and married within the free white communities.

3) The understanding of where E1b1a originates, or the age of it, or the migration of those with E1b1a is not properly noted or identified – in other words, Anthropologists typically say we all migrated from Africa at some time.  Mutations in Y-DNA over time identify where we are from during the past 1000-50,000 years – and identify our haplogroups.  The current theory of E1b1a is that the haplogroup has been around 20,000-30,000 years, and that as the Sahara dried up those with E1b1a migrated south away from the desert about 3000 years ago.  Its possible groups of E1b1a may have migrated in other directions 3000 years ago into pockets or areas that have not been identified or sampled yet (such as towards southern Europe, like Spain, Greece, Italy, etc).

Y-DNA:  See the following page for Y-DNA results for this line: Y-DNA information for Goyen:  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/y-dna-for-goyen/  Y-DNA matches (most distant known ancestors of people we match – have common paternal ancestor with these people):  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/ydna-matches/

(Also, see page for John Hallowes b. 1612-1615).

(Note:  The Kirkland family see:  http://ourtexasfamilycom.ipage.com/RossFam/Kirkland_Family.html, Hollis family, Going family, and possibly the Keiffe family all appear to have arrived to the Northern Neck of Virginia through Maryland (or at least had ties to Maryland) in the 1600s).

(See Y-DNA results:  https://goyengoinggowengoyneandgone.com/hollis-family/ ).

Other Trees online: 

Was Mihil Gowen an Ancestor of Thomas Gowing / Going?  

Several sources have named a “Mihil Gowen” as his likely parent.  This is based on the research of Paul Heinegg in “Free African Americans of North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina, Volume 1”, 2005.   Heinegg never says that Mihil “is” actually the parent of Thomas Going, only that he may be (Note: which is still a possibility – but it there are other possibilities as I have indicated).  Even though it is still possible, I think a more likely line is through John Gowing who arrived in Virginia and appears to have moved to Maryland some time between 1640-50 and then back again to Virginia.    There are other options as well.  Thomas Going could have been the original immigrant, he could be a child of the Thomas Gowing noted as arriving to Virginia in 1635.  Or the child of one of the other Going-type names arriving in Virginia or Maryland prior to 1693 when he first appears in Virginia.  My best guess is that since there is a Y-DNA connection with the Hollis family, that John Gowing may be the original immigrant for this line (see below).    http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Gibson_Gowen.htm

All transactions with Thomas Gowing, and his sons William, James, and John, are along the Potomac River – on the border of Maryland.  Esau Goeing and Thomas Going show up in Talbot County Maryland records in 1671-72, close in time, then they show up about the same time in 1693 in Westmoreland County, Virginia.  This suggests they may be related.

Heinegg’s research is helpful in locating documents. His identification that Thomas Gowing might be Mihill Gowen’s son is based on Mihill being a freed slave, Mihill being in Virginia at a time period that is reasonable for him to be the parent, and based on a document about Thomas Gowing that infers he may have had African ancestry (called a mullatto rascal in a hotly disputed land suit in a depostion some 40-50 years after Thomas Gowing has left the area, or died).   Heinegg makes it clear in his work that he is unsure if Thomas Gowing is a child of Mihill Gowen, but his inclusion of Thomas as a possible child has led to multiple sources stating that Thomas Gowing is actually the child of Mihill Gowen.  It is still possible that Mihill is Thomas’ parent, but again, there are other options that should be considered, especially with the Y-DNA matches to the Hollis family, and the location that Thomas Going lived (and his children).

Another possibility is that Mihill Gowen is a cousin or other relative of Thomas Gowing.

John Gowen b. abt 1600-1615 arrived in James City County, Virginia in 1635, which is close to York County, Virginia.  There is a John Gawin (Gowin) who is noted in York County, Virginia from 1668 to 1698 who may be a relative of Mihill and Thomas Gowing.   If John Gowen b. abt 1600-1615 had a spouse or relationship while in York County, Virginia, while acting as a servant.  (Note: Servants were not allowed to legally marry without their master’s permission.  Sometimes they married secretly, and if discovered, they would be punished, and their children would become servants as well).   Mihill Gowen was a servant in this area, and may have been a child of John Gowen b. abt 1600-1615 who arrived in Virginia in 1635.

(Note:  I don’t think Mihill Gowen was the parent of Thomas Gowen – maybe a relative). The documents Heinegg points to, and others cite, include 1) Testimony Required:  Thomas was required to get testimony he was a free man – this has been misread.  It was Chapman Dark who was sent to prove he was free; and 2) Deposition:  A deposition some 25-30 years after Thomas Gowing was gone from the area with a comment about  “mulatto rascals”.

There are at least 3 different fairly large Going-type name Y-DNA lines known that have African Y-DNA signatures – probably more – that have been shown to be in Virginia in the 1700s – and none of the lines can point to the “original immigrant” with any certainty.  (Note: It is possible that any of these Going men we are speculating about prior that appear to have been born prior to Thomas Going b. abt 1660 belong to one of the other two Y-DNA lines).

The John Gowing connection with the Hollis family in the mid 1600s, along with the Y-DNA match between the Going descendants and the Hollis descendants, makes John Gowing a more likely candidate as the original immigrant for this Gowing line.

1 Response to 1650 or after – Thomas Gowing in Stafford County, Virginia

  1. Pingback: Goyen Going Gowen Goyne Goin, etc, family information – Y-DNA results | Goyen Family Tree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s