Kyle- Would you be kind enough to discuss any further detail available about the John Hooker (brother of Nathan) kidnapped about 1767. The reason is the following. In the 1790 Census of South Carolina's Orangeburgh District there was enumerated a John Hooker. He was later enumerated in each of the Censuses in this district through 1840 except the 1830 Census when he appears to have resided in the household of William Hooker, my Greatgrandfather. From these data and a Revolutionary War Pension application we have estimated his birth at about 1760. We have been unable to further trace John's ancestry. The information you provide offers an interesting possibility. I would appreciate any light you can shed on this mystery. Gerald J. Hooker Aiken, SC Kyle VanLandingham wrote: > > Jane-In l787, Nathan Hooker (son of Stephen, who d. ca l767), petitioned the > NC General Assembly regarding some land of his brother, John, who at the age > of l2, in l769, was kidnapped and carried off to "New Spain in America." > The Nathan and John mentioned here were sons of Stephen Hooker, who left the > will in l766, Tyrrell Co., NC. The petition and additional documents can be > found in > "State Records of North Carolina," Vol. 20, as cited in my previous message. > Now I know that Nathan is also referred to as Jonathan in the records, which > complicates the matter, but the memorial was presented by his stepfather, > Benjamin Spruill. And interestingly, the seductor of young l2 year old John > was Abram Jennett, whose daughter Ann m. James Swain, the sister of Rosanna > Swain who first married Stephen Hooker, and then Benjamin Spruill. > > At any rate, this has led me to believe that young John, b. l757, son of > Stephen, left the scene rather early and could not be the John who left the > will in Tyrrell Co., in l790. > > As to the Stephen, Jr., who appears on Tyrrell Co., deeds in the l760s, I > have assumed he was the son of John, who m. Elizabeth M. Swain. Stephen, > who left the will in l766, did not list a son named Stephen. Also, the term > Jr., does not necessarily indicate that the person who signed his name as > Jr., is a son of a person by the same name. Stephen Hooker, Jr., may be > junior to his uncle Stephen Hooker. There is precedent for this during the > colonial time period. > > These are suppositions that I have made and I welcome you comments. > > Kyle > > ==== HOOKER Mailing List ==== > Please Help the poor Listowner attach his ancestor <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/patander73/hoo20.html">Robert Hooker</A> (1784-1855) TN,KY