Scott -- The answer of Christopher Houts shows the relationship between Henry (who was the complainant in the lawsuit) and Samuel. I am including the transcription of this answer below that I have in my records. I am unsure where you were researching but these records were contained in the Clerk of the Mercer Circuit Court's office, not the County Clerk. They are the original papers from the 1700s and 1800s. Unfortunately, these records have been removed from Mrs. Bishop's office to Frankfort now to the Archives. They can still be viewed but the conditions are very stringent before they will allow them to be accessed. They were contained in bundles tied with ribbons when they were still here in Mercer County. There is also another reference that refers to their relationship as brothers but I can't lay my hands on it at this time. The reference while it was still here was Bundle F - 1798. You had to literally look through the entire bundle to locate documents and they were and are very fragile. Some were too fragile to photocopy. Does this help? The question marks are mine because I was unsure about the verbage. Lawsuit - French v. Houts - Mercer County, Kentucky: The answer of Christopher Houts[1] in a Bill of Chancery exhibited against himself by Henry French in the Court of Mercer County This Deft now and at all other times saving and reserving to himself all &~ all manner of Benefits of exception to the many errors, untruths &~ uncertainties in the said complainats (sic) Bill of Complaint contained the answer thereto or as much thereof as it is advised it is material for him to answer to he answers it and saith That here it is that this Deft instituted a suit ___________ Judgment at common Law against s'd com't on a Note assigned to this Deft from Isaac Coffman and this Deft expressly says that before he traded (?) for said Note he talked with Complt who acknowledged it to be Just &~ said he would pay it. This Deft says that the comp't never did deliver a Note on Smith or any other person for fifty Bushels of salt as stated in the Bill But Samuel French[2] a Brother of the Comp't being indebted to this Deft offered a Note on s'd Smith which note was executed to the Comp't as a Discharge or payment of the debt owed by the s'd Samuel French to this Deft But this Deft believes from what had passed said Smith was insolvent utterly refused to take the Note as a payment of the debt owed by Samuel French. The s'd Samuel French then said that he knew the s'd Smith was not good for payment of the Note but requested this Deft to take the Note as a Neighbour & friend and try to get something. This Deft took s'd Note but never got anything from s'd note from Smith & afterwards s'd Samuel discharged the debt he owed to this Deft took back the Note on Smith & the s'd note this Deft has since seen as he believes in the possession of William McGinnis who told this Deft that he received the s'd note from Samuel French. That this Deft never heard that the com't set up any claim to s'd note on Smith untill very latterly (?) and since this Deft sued the Comp & often since the said Samuel delivered the s'd note on Smith, the Comp't has acknowledged the Justice of the debt he owed to this Deft. This Deft. Positively declares that he did give s'd Comp't notice according to the requisitions of the Note on which suit was brought & that it was proven on the trial a Common Law & this Deft further says that when he gave notice to s'd Comp't he hired Waggons to go for the salt & also some hides he had at the Falls one of which Waggons belonged to the Comp't & the said wagons went to the Falls for the Hides, then went to the Lick & waited two days as this Deft is informed & believes & then returned without any salt. This Deft. Conceives that the Comp't had fair trial a(t) Common Law, that on the day of trial he believes that the Councile moved for a Continuance of the cause on account of the absence of some of the Witnesses and for the want of the deposition of Smith, but the Court perceiving that no steps had been taken by the Comp't to take the Deposition of s'd Smith & that the cause had been continued on the Docket for a Considerable time ruled the Comp't on to trial & this Deft verily believes that the object of the Comp't is delay for after the Deft commenced suit in a private conversation this Deft asked the Comp't why he by his plea denyed the debt since he has always acknowledged it to be Just, the Comp't said that he was afraid the Deft would get Judgment against him and distress his family while he was gone to the settlement. He told this Deft that he did not know the nature of Law as he did, that the Lawyers would plead anything to keep off the suit but that he would get money while he was gone & would pay this Deft as soon as he returned. This Deft. Says that he never got any notice from s'd Comp't that he was about to take the Deposition of Smith & does not know that a new trial was moved for at term when Judgment was obtained & conceives that it would be extreamly (sic) unjust that there should be a new trial granted & that it would tend to promote delay & injustice even if their (sic) might have been a reason for a new Trial. That this Comp'ts application is too late but denies that there is any reason. Christopher Houts This day came Christopher Houts personally before me one of the Justices of the Peace for said County and made Oath that the within answer is true so far as he recollects from his own knowledge & what he recollects from the information of others believes to be true given under my hand this 27th day of February 1798 Hugh McGary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] This suit is included not only because it establishes the relationship between Henry and Samuel but it offers another clue as to the migration pattern of the Frenches to Kentucky. Christopher Houts (Houtz) was also located in Shenandoah County (West) Virginia with Henry Franch in the 1790 census. Isaac Coffman was also included in this same census. [2] The language in this answer confirms the relationship between Samuel French and Henry French. In addition, there is a deposition wherein the deponent testifies as to their relationship. ----- Original Message ----- From: <SSCOTT736@aol.com> To: <french@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:07 PM Subject: Re: [FRENCH] FRENCH Digest, > Back to chart # 31 - to Dianna Rose, you state that Samuel French was > definitely Henry's brother, and you said a deposition attested to by Hugh > McGary > in the Mercer Circuit Court Records. I have looked at the Mercer County > records, can't seem to find it. Would appreciate an address, or copy of > this > document. Thanks, > S.Scott > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FRENCH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >