I don't understand how this would tie in with the headright grant. Are you suggesting that the "relict of Richard Pace" who married William Brisco could have been the "relict" of the headright grant Richard Pace? paceshire@juno.com wrote: It is for sure that Mary Pace was tied into York County. 10,Dec. 1683 Brisco, William as maarrying the relict of Richd. Pace suing George Tarne to Ct. upon a bill of 600 pounds tobo & caske putting plt upon proofe thereof it is ord that same be refered to nwent court. 24, Jan. 1683/4 Brisco, William, Diff between William Brisco as marrying relict of Richd. Pace and George Tarne ord that sd Tarne next court produce his discount otherwise Judgmt to pass for sum sued for last bill being proven by oath of Robert Perry one of the wittnesses. 24, March 1683/4 ref to next court between William Brisco as marrying the relict of Richard Pace and George Tarne. 26, May 1684 Brisco, William granted judgmt, George Tarne; marrying relict of Richd. Pace decd. for 600 pounds tob. & Ca. is ord. to be paid w/ costs als exec. I would guess that Brisco was sueing Tarne for a debt owed Richard Pace 1689 a William Brisco died. 1689 Mary Pace Brisco married Nicolas Whittmore, moved to his plantation. 1692 Thomas Kirkland v. Nicholas Whitmore and Mary, his wife, admix of Richard Pace, one of the executors of Hugh Kirkland, is refered to Capt. Taylor and Capt. Perry for audit. Charles City ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.