Kathlynn, That would be my interpretation. Samuel Maycock had earned the right to the land by virtue of paying for the transport of the four persons mentioned. Since he is now deceased, Samuel could no longer speak up to demand his due. Being honorable men, these gentlemen are declaring officially that the minor child Sarah now has the right to the land, lest it be forgotten in future. Sarah at this point has no awareness of any of her rights, so they want it written into the record now to avoid confusion at some point in the future when she comes of age. Notice that they are not granting her any specific parcel of land. They are just declaring that she has the right to "two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her" at some time in the future. That's my interpretation. Joe Anderson ----Original Message Follows---- From: Kathlynn3@aol.com To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock - Virginia Magazine Source Reference Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:57:45 EDT Hi Kim, et al, What is your opinion... now that we have complete document? Does it appear that perhaps Capt Roger Smith, [and the other men listed] appeared in court to validate/testify in behalf of minor child Sarah's right to father Samuel's land? Or am I reading something into this that has no validity? Opinions requested... ~Kathlynn~ In a message dated 7/1/2006 11:08:15 PM Central Standard Time, Zapnyou@aol.com writes: Transcribed: VIIIth day of May 1626 A courte held the viiith day of May 1626 beinge p[?]fent Sr ffrancis Wyatt Knight Gournor &c, Capt ffranis Weft Capt Roger Smith Capt Samuel Mathewes Mr William Cleybourne. Yt is order yt Sara Maycock for fower fervants brought over in the Abigaill 1622 vppon the Accompt of Mr Samuell Maycock fhall have two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her in any place not fomerly Taken vpp.

One additional point: Someone posted a month or so ago that Sara Maycock can be found in the household of Capt. Roger Smith following the massacre: " Capt Roger Smith head >Mrs Joan Smith his wife >Elizabeth Salter aged 7, arrived on the Seaflower >Elizabeth Rolfe aged 4, born in VA >Sarah Macock aged 2, born in VA >Charles Waller servant, 22, arrived on the Abigail in 1620 >Christopher Bankus, servant, 19, arrived on the Abigail in 1622 >Henery Booth servant, 20, arrived on the Dutie >Henery Lacton servant, 18, arrived on the Hopwell in 1623" Assuming that this is the same Roger Smith that is mentioned in the extract below, "Sr ffrancis Wyatt Knight Gournor &c, Capt ffranis Weft Capt Roger Smith Capt Samuel Mathewes Mr William Cleybourne." then we might presume that he is acting as the guardian of Sarah and assuring that her rights are recognized. Possibly the prouncement quoted below occurred at his instigation as he fulfilled his responsibilities as guardian of young Sarah. Joe ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Janders 45" <janders45@hotmail.com> To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock - Virginia Magazine Source Reference Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:29:19 -0500 Kathlynn, That would be my interpretation. Samuel Maycock had earned the right to the land by virtue of paying for the transport of the four persons mentioned. Since he is now deceased, Samuel could no longer speak up to demand his due. Being honorable men, these gentlemen are declaring officially that the minor child Sarah now has the right to the land, lest it be forgotten in future. Sarah at this point has no awareness of any of her rights, so they want it written into the record now to avoid confusion at some point in the future when she comes of age. Notice that they are not granting her any specific parcel of land. They are just declaring that she has the right to "two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her" at some time in the future. That's my interpretation. Joe Anderson ----Original Message Follows---- From: Kathlynn3@aol.com To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock - Virginia Magazine Source Reference Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:57:45 EDT Hi Kim, et al, What is your opinion... now that we have complete document? Does it appear that perhaps Capt Roger Smith, [and the other men listed] appeared in court to validate/testify in behalf of minor child Sarah's right to father Samuel's land? Or am I reading something into this that has no validity? Opinions requested... ~Kathlynn~ In a message dated 7/1/2006 11:08:15 PM Central Standard Time, Zapnyou@aol.com writes: Transcribed: VIIIth day of May 1626 A courte held the viiith day of May 1626 beinge p[?]fent Sr ffrancis Wyatt Knight Gournor &c, Capt ffranis Weft Capt Roger Smith Capt Samuel Mathewes Mr William Cleybourne. Yt is order yt Sara Maycock for fower fervants brought over in the Abigaill 1622 vppon the Accompt of Mr Samuell Maycock fhall have two hundred acres of lande to be taken vpp by her in any place not fomerly Taken vpp. ==== PACE Mailing List ==== Check out the Pace GenConnect Boards where you can post or peruse Pace Bibles, Obits, Bios, Deeds, Wills, Queries, etc. Bookmark this URL: http://boards.ancestry.com