HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "If you can't stand the skeletons, stay out of the closet" - Val D Greenwood Folks, I'm beginning to wonder if we may not have a problem with legal definitions concerning Alfred of SC. So pay attention all you lawyers, legal clerks, paralegals or anyone knowing how to research early SC law......... This is what I now know (and suspect) based on the court case that Bonnie sent me this morning. 1) From the will of Alfred's father: 5th It is my will that all my lands on the east of the lands given to Elizabeth and Benjamin called the Days tract to be divided between my two sons John Hatcher and Alfred Hatcher ........ I wish John to divide the land and give Alfred choice and if Alfred should die without any children I wish it all be given to John Hatcher. 2) In a court case (murder) in 1849, Alfred identifies Lucy Kirkland as his daughter and Wilson Kirkland (a defendant in the case) as her husband. 3) In re-analyzing our file based on this new info, I now believe that John Hatcher bn c1840, and Frances R Hatcher, bn c1842, who were living w/Alfred in 1850 are also his children and that they, as was Lucy, are the children of the woman, bn 1790-1800, who is in Alfred's 1830-1840 census. 4) In 1869, shortly after Alfred's death, his brother John files suit to take possession of Alfred's land. The wording is as follows: "That in conformity to the said devise [his father's will] the said Alfred went into the possession of the said mority of the said land according to his choice and remained thereon until the day of his death. That the said Alfred departed this life intestate on or about the (space) day of (space) AD 1868 leaving surviving him no child or children. And that Rice Swearingen & Susan Swearingen are now resident thereon & pretend to claim the same. Your Orator further shews unto your Honor that your Orator has survived the said Alfred and is entitled to the said land. That he has applied to the said Rice & Susan Swearigen for the quiet delivery of the possession thereof but his reasonable request in that regard has been disregarded." Here's the problem. Alfred did have at least one provable child, Lucy, and possibly 2 more, John and Frances R. While I can't (yet) prove Lucy was still alive in 1868, we do know that John and Frances R were alive and well, with John living right next to Susan and Rice Swearingen. How then does John make the claim that Alfred left no surviving children? Could it be that Alfred never married the woman he was living with and that, under 1849 SC law, illegitimate children would not be considered legal heirs of their father? I have never seen the documents that give us the disposition of this case so have no idea what the decision was...... Any legal eagles want to take a crack at this? Nel