Wythe Co. VA Superior Court of Chancery
Beaty et al vs Clark et al
File # 1821-04-SC
copied Jul 04 from the original documents
transcribed Aug. 04 by D. Powell [paragraphs added for ease of reading]
John Clark & others )
vs ) depositions
James Beaty & others )
Taken the 10th March 1821 at John Stewarts
In Washington County
James Clark 1
Joseph Meek Jr. 4
Robert Stewart 5
James Porterfield 7
Thomas Edmiston 9
Margaret Edmiston 9
Rosanna Stewart 10
Edw Hutton [deposition was started, then lined out, then recorded as a separate document on a later date]
Filed 27th August 1821
_______________________________________________________________
Washington Co. to wit
By virtue of a commission from the superior court of chancery directed by Law to be holden at the courthouse of Wythe county, I have caused the witnesses hereinafter named to come before me at the dwelling house of John Stuart in the said county of Washington on behalf of John Clark administrator with the Will annexed of David Beattie dec’d and David Beattie in a certain matter of controversy in the said court of chancery depending between James Beattie, Elizabeth Beaty widow of Armstrong Beaty, decd and William Beatty infant son of the said Armstrong Beaty and Elizabeth by her the said Elizabeth his mother and next friend heir of the said David Beaty decd plaintiff and the said John Clark and Polly his wife and David Beaty defendants, on the 10th day of March 1821 in the presence of John Clark above named and Thomas Edmiston the agent of the plaintiff James Beaty.
JAMES CLARK of lawful age a witness for the defendants being first duly sworn deposeth and saith that he was present at the house of the widow of David Beaty decd when the heirs of the said David had met there for the purpose of dividing the undevised slaves of the estate of the said David Beaty, decd, the heirs were all present except the deft Polly Clark, but her husband was there – It was proposed that the undevised slaves of the said David Beaty decd should be divided between his heirs of whom there was six and there was also six slaves to wit, Robert, Nancy, Charles, Anthony, Ann and Lilah, and the heirs agreed that Mary Beaty the widow of the said David should take the part of one of the heirs with which she appeared to be satisfied and to which she consented – and that the said slaves should be divided by lot and taken at the appraisement, that a portion in money was to be made up for the share of one of the heirs (the following had then been entered and crossed out: which John Beaty agreed to take saying that would suit him __ he _____ he would prefer the money to taking one of the slaves)
The lots had been prepared and were placed in the hands of the deponent, when he mentioned that the heirs could agree on the division without drawing – David Beaty supposed they could not agree without drawing lots being of opinion that he and his brother James would make choice of the same boy – James said he thought not and being asked by some person present which he would choose, he made choice of Nancy, then David Beaty made choice of Charles, John Clark made choice of Robert, William Beaty made choice of Ann, Armstrong Beaty made choice of Anthony, and the widow Mary Beaty took Lilah – and John Beaty was to receive his portion in money. The witness understood that the heirs might have made a choice either of the money or a slave if they had proceeded to draw lots until the money lot had been disposed of - One of the heirs mentioned after the division was made, but which of them the deponent cannot now recollect, that it was remarkable that each one of them had got their choice –
The deponent thinks to the best of his knowledge that on the day of the division James Beaty executed his note to John Clark which he thinks was for one dollar less than the amount of a note executed to the said John Clark by David Beaty on the same day, which the deponent understood was for the surplus of their portions in the division. The deponent supposes from the appearance of the boy James, a slave given by David Beaty dec’d to John Clark after his marriage with the daughter of said David to be now between 12 and 15 years of age. The deponent thinks that the slave Eliza mentioned in the bill could not exceed 2 years of age when she was given by David Beaty decd to his son David or when he first saw her in possession of David Beaty the younger.
Being interrogated by the agent of the plaintiff James saith that Mary Beaty the widow of the said David Beaty took the slave Lilah as her share of the undevised slaves of her husband and that appeared to be the understanding of the heirs on the day of division. That the deponent heard James Beaty say several years after the division of the slaves and sometime before he removed from the county of Washington that he intended to bring suit against John Clark for his interest in the slave James which had been given to him by David Beaty after his marriage with his daughter Polly. Further the deponent saith not - subscribed by him
James Clark
JOS MEEK Jr. another witness of lawful age, for the defendants being also duly sworn deposeth and saith that he was asked by James Beaty the plaintiff to be clerk for him at the sale of the estate of his mother after her death, that the said James proceeded to sell the estate when a small female slave was sold to David Beaty who was the highest bidder – That the said David Beaty and some others had not given their bond and the deponent asked James Beaty in the presence of David Beaty what should be done with those who had not given their bond who replied they could fix that among themselves, but the deponent does not recollect that David Beaty offered to give bond and security, nor does he recollect that James demanded it of him. further the deponent saith not. subscribed by him Joseph Meek
ROBERT STEWART of lawful age another witness for the defts being first duly sworn deposeth and saith, that a few days after the sale of the estate of Mary Beaty he heard James Beaty and David Beaty in conversation David asked James why he would not do as he had said he would do a few days before the sale - James said he thought he would have done so, but he had since altered his mind then David said he never would execute his note for the amount of the price of the girl unless he was compelled, by law or his attorney advised him to do so and he told James he might sue him as soon as he pleased. It was not then stated what James had agreed to do, until after David had separated from him. That he had seen the advertisement of James Beaty for the sale of the estate of Mary Beaty, and thinks a negro girl was advertised for sale but of that he is not certain.
The witness was interrogated by Thomas Edmiston the agent of the plaintiff James, saith that (following was entered and then lined out: he never understood from Mary Beaty in what way she held the slave Delilah whether as a donation from the heirs or as in right of dower) Mary Beaty never told him that she had received or held the slave Delilah as a donation from the heirs of David Beaty her husband nor did the witness understand from any of the heirs that they had made a donation to Mary Beaty of the said slave. The witness is of opinion from his knowledge of the disposition of Mary Beaty that if she had received the slave Delilah as a donation from the heirs that she would have told it to some of her neighbors or relations. But the witness does not recollect that Mary Beaty, or any of the heirs ever had any conversation about the division of the undevised part of the estate of David Beaty dec’d before the commencement of the present suit.
Mary Beaty was the sister of the deponents mother and her residence before her death did not exceed three miles from that of his father where he resided, that she came sometimes to his fathers, and was intimate and friendly with the family, but is unable to say whether she was more so than with others in the neighborhood – Further the deponent saith not – Subscribed by him
Robert Stewart
JAMES PORTERFIELD of lawful age another witness for the defendants being first duly sworn deposeth and saith, that he was present when a conversation took place between James Beaty the plaintiff and John Porterfield the father of the witness at his house in the winter of 1820 after the death of Mary Beaty in relation to the present suit – James Beaty was asked by some person present why he had not brought this suit sooner – He said he was determined not to bring it as long as his mother lived, for one reason that his mother would have come in for her part of the property in dispute, and another reason he would tell no man, which conveyed to the mind of the witness the idea that he had a reason which he would not communicate to any person, but would keep it to himself.
The witness asked James Beaty if he did not think that David Beaty had a right to dispose of his property as he pleased in his lifetime to which he answered that he had – The witness then asked him if he did not think that his father had given those negroes, the one to John Clark and the other to David Beaty – He answered he believed it was his fathers intention for them to have them, and if they had had the scrape of a pen from his father he never would have contended for them and that if they would not attend to their own business no other person would do it for them.
The witness again asked him if there was not one named to him, a child of the mother of the one given to David Beaty – He said there was a boy but it died before it came into his possession and he believed he would have got it if it had lived, he had no doubt of it, but he would not exchange a dead negro for a living one – and he believed if the negro girl David Beaty had got had been a boy he would have got it in place of David, for his mother had said the first boy which a certain negro woman whose name the witness does not now remember, tho he named her, should be his.
During the conversation with John Porterfield James Beaty frequently mentioned that in a private conversation he could convince him of the propriety or justice of his claim or words to that import. That shortly after the conversation between James Beaty and the father of the witness his father became warm or irritated, but James Beaty was not – Further saith not – subscribed by the witness
James Porterfield
THOMAS EDMISTON of lawful age another witness for the defendants, who being first duly sworn deposeth and saith, that when he drew the will of Mary Beaty she asked him if he thought she had the right to dispose of the slave Delilah by her will – The witness told her he thought she had not. She then said if she had not she had better say nothing about it as it might cause disputes, but of this he is not positive, tho he is of opinion that she said so – The witness is of opinion that if he (following was entered then lined out: had not given the above opinion that Mar Beaty would have devised the slave Delilah. Further the deponent saith not subscribed by him) had told her that she had the right to devise the slave Delilah, she would have devised her. Further the deponent saith not – Subscribed by him
Thomas Edmiston
MARGARET EDMISTON of lawful age another witness for the defendants being first duly sworn deposeth and saith, That Mary Beaty came to the house of Thomas Edmiston her husband for the purpose of getting him to draw her Will, and the night before, Mary Beaty and the witness sat up for some time after the family had retired to bed and Mary Beaty told the witness that she intended to give Polly Beaty the daughter of James Beaty the plaintiff, and to Polly Beaty the daughter of David Beaty one of the defendants, each a negro, but did not understand the names of the negroes she intended to devise to each, but she understood from her that Lilah was one of them. The witness understood from Mary Beaty that she claimed the said slave in right of dower, and she never understood from her that she had any other claim. But the witness cannot say that she ever heard Mary Beaty expressly say that she claimed the said slave in right of dower.
When the husband of the witness was drawing the will of Mary Beaty, and when she was about to dispose of the slave Delilah she asked her husband if she had the right to dispose of her by Will, who informed her that she had not the right to dispose of her, as she had only a life estate in her and she did not then say that she had any other claim to her.
Further the deponent saith not – subscribed by her
Margaret Edmiston
ROSANNA STEWART of lawful age another witness being first duly sworn deposeth and saith that Mary Beaty came to the house of John Stewart the husband of the witness to have a will drawn, which was some time before she made her will drawn by Thomas Edmiston, and the husband of the witness and Mary Beaty retired unto another room for the purpose – After some time she returned to where the witness was in tears, and told her that John Stewart had told her that she cold not dispose of the slave Delilah. But if she could she would have given her to Polly, the wife of John Clark as the witness understood, as she had got none of the land.
The witness is of opinion that James Beaty received from his father after he was married (and the deft Clark admits before the date of the will of David Beaty) one or probably two cows, a horse, and a bed and covering and a plantation – The horse was received before the marriage. The witness never understood from Mary Beaty that she claimed the slave Delilah as a donation from the heirs of David Beaty dec’d – The witness knew that Mary Beaty claimed her but knew not on what ground. Further the deponent saith not – subscribed by her
Rosanna Stewart
The commission was employed 5 hours in traveling from his residence in Abingdon to William Stewarts a distance of 10 miles, and the same in returning, and 7 hours in taking the foregoing dep.