Hi Nel: This statement confuses me: "But this Henry Sr's wife is supposed to be Dorothy. Yet Dorothy gave power of attorney to Josiah in the settlement of Henry Sr's estate which eliminates Josiah as her son. An heir to that estate would have a conflict of interest in representing his mother and would never have been given POA by the court." My mother gave me her POA after my father died so that I could help her with any legal matters as necessary. Why could not Dorothy have given a POA to her "son" Josiah so that he could help her with the legal matters involved in the estate settlement? That would have been the logical thing to do. Or, were the POA regulations different back then? Thanks for any clarification. Martha ----- Original Message ----- From: "nelhatch" <[email protected]> To: "HATCHERLIST" <[email protected]> Cc: "James Maloney" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:50 PM Subject: [HATCHER] A Henry progress report.......... > > HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com > HALL DNA project: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm > "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a > brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld > > Folks, > > In reviewing more records, I'm now seeing them with "new eyes." > > In 1730 GOOCHLAND, we have a number of records showing Henry, assignee of > Samuel vs Richard Syms in a trespass case. There are several possibilities > here but trespass is defined as someone doing some form of damage to > someone's land or the property thereon. > > So we know that Samuel owned land in Goochland before 1730. Goochland was > formed in 1728. > > Henry may have been assigned to represent Sam who could not attend the > court sessions or Hanry had recently purchased Sam's land not yet > registered in court records. These records do not imply that either Sam or > Henry actually lived in Goochland. > > The first known record of Goochland land ownership are the grants to > Henry, s/o BEN, in 1732-34-36. He may have been living there before 1732. > > So "Henry" may have been the s/o BEN or he may have been the brother of > Sam. > > Currently the brothers Henry and Sam are shown as sons of Henry/DOROTHY, > s/o HENRY. > > You can see these records on Henry/Dorothy's page at the bottom > http://hatcherfamilyassn.com/getperson.php?personID=I43727&tree=WmTheIm > as well as the 1736 John Nash recs that prove Henry and Sam as brothers. > > The Nash recs also ID Henry Sr as father of Henry Jr [and Sam]. But Josiah > is also mentioned here and his "father" is mentioned but not by name. On > the surface, one would assume that Josiah also had to be a son of Henry > Sr. > > But this Henry Sr's wife is supposed to be Dorothy. Yet Dorothy gave power > of attorney to Josiah in the settlement of Henry Sr's estate which > eliminates Josiah as her son. An heir to that estate would have a conflict > of interest in representing his mother and would never have been given POA > by the court. > > Looking at Henry Jr's page > http://hatcherfamilyassn.com/getperson.php?personID=I39491&tree=WmTheIm > see the map [click on it]. > > The angled white line is the Cumberland [now Powhatan] county line. No 2 > is Henry. No 4 is Josiah. Right on top of each other. AND Sam lived in the > same area as proven by his will. He gave his son, Ben, land in Cumberland > that joins Sam's land in Chesterfield. So Sam's land straddled that county > line. > > You need to know that Goochland formed in 1728, Cumberland formed from > Goochland in 1749, Powhatan formed from Cumberland in 1777. > > Since it sure looks now as if Henry Jr, Sam and Josiah were all brothers, > that means they would be sons of Henry, s/o BEN since Josiah can't be son > of Henry/Dorothy. > > But if we go that route, that means we currently have NO kids attached to > Henry/Dorothy. Yet I don't believe Dorothy would have had any reason to > challenge what Henry left her if they had no kids. Everything would have > gone to her. > > I'm not even going to speculate on which Henry md Susannah or Margaret at > this point. That may become clearer as I progress with this new theory. > > I'm building a timeline from 1674 to as far as I have to go and have > already "seen" something unnoticed before. > > In 1705 only 1 Henry was on the Rent Rolls in Henrico. But in 1709 > Henry/DOROTHY "of Henrico" sold land they purchased from Charles Evans > that originally belonged to Wm and Mary Ligon. It is possible > Henry/Dorothy returned to Henrico from CCCo after 1705 and/or got lost in > the shuffle of court deed docs not being recorded in a timely manner. It > should also be noted that Henry Lound died in 1708 and that he had a gdau > who md a Ligon, another possible reason for their presence in Henrico and > their purchase/sale of the Evans/Ligon land. > > Nel > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2779 - Release Date: 03/30/10 02:32:00