They could all be related. As I have learned more about my BAIRD/PARRIS lines in Smith Co., TN, it has become evident that they never sold/bought or witnessed anything for someone who didn't already have some kind of remote kinship to them. If it were just a deed, I wouldn't lean towards the above "all being related", but I think I'm leaning towards "all kin" because, if I understood original message correctly, Elizabeth BRADSHAW again witnesses the will of John PLEASANTS. It is unusual for a daughter to witness a will, I'd say she's a sister or cousin of the same generation as John PLEASANTS. Lucy Barron Sharon, MA At 03:48 PM 4/6/99 -0400, ANNE B. MUSSER wrote: >Hi B.J., > I think this particular situation has to do with Elizabeth BRADSHAW >witnessing on behalf of Edward and Mary JONES rather than her having >anything to do with John PLEASANTS. We know that the JONES' were related to >the BRADSHAW family by marriage and knowing that, we can probably surmise >that the families were friends and neighbors. Therefore, Elizabeth BRADSHAW >probably witnessed the deed on behalf of the JONES'. At least this is the >way I see it. > I would like to hear other people's opinions. Please just post to the >list what you think and why. > Anne >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >Date: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 10:54 AM >Subject: [BRADSHAW-L] Elizabeth > > >>Don't know this will help at all in the "Who was John's Elizabeth?" search >>but I ran across this when doing filing. >> >>"Elizabeth Bradshaw and Francis Reeves witnessed a deed on 1 April, 1698. >It >>was a mortgage by Edward and Mary (Fields) Jones "for 5600 lbs tob made >over >>to John Pleasants, 180 acs, part of land which was their brother Fields' by >>deed of mortgage, 4 April 1694. Mortgage has not been paid, and Pleasants >>sells sd land to Gilly Groomarrin for 500 lbs tob reserving mineral >rights." >>[Deeds 1697- 1704, p. 73 ]. Elizabeth and Jane Pleasants witnessed John >>Pleasants' will on 1 June 1698 [Henrico Deeds 1677-1705, p. 104]. >> >>Elizabeth would have to have been of legal age to witness the mortgage. >>Women had to be 14 to inherit property, men 21. >> >>Another part of the article had the following: >> >>"John Bradshaw Sr. apparently died between 1696 and 1711. In 1711 Arthur >>Markham and wife Elizabeth sued Jane Bayley for illegally detaining an >>unnamed son of Elizabeth as a servant. (orders p. 80) Elizabeth Marcum >>(Markham) "mother of Benjamin Bradshaw" sued William Ballew (Ballowe) over >>the way Ballew was treating Benjamin, then his servant or worker. ... In >>1747 Benjamin provided security for Judith, widow of William Bradshaw, and >he >>witnessed Larner's will in 1750;. In 1714, John Giles sued William and >John >>Bradshaw in Henrico County, 4 October 1714. (Minutes 1710-1714, p. 66) >(The >>case was dismissed.)" >> >>Don't know that this added anything more than confusion but for what it is >>worth. The information above is from an article in my files - not my >>research. It is an exceptional article, well documented and the deductions >>make sense even to me. I am sorry that I don't have a reference to the >>author so cannot obtain the author's permission to post the entire >article, >>only those parts for which there is a document referenced. >> >> >>==== BRADSHAW Mailing List ==== >> >>REMINDER ! ! ! Messages exceeding 20,000 bytes (20KB) will not be >processed; in otherwords, it will not be sent to the list membership. >> >>======================================================= >> > > >==== BRADSHAW Mailing List ==== > >Have a question, recommendation or comment about RootsWeb or this list, please direct same to the list moderator: Jim Young <[email protected]> > >Issues of general membership interest should be directed to the list: [email protected] > >======================================================= >