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]
Cover:
James Beaty )
vs )
David Beaty, John Clark )
and Polly his wife
21 Sept. 1821
1821 Oct. 11 returned
Sealed
Washington county to wit
By virtue of a commission from the superior court of chancery held at the courthouse of Wythe county I have caused the witnesses hereinafter named to appear before me at the house of Major Thomas Edmiston in the said county on behalf of James Beaty & William Beaty in a certain matter of controversy in the said court of chancery depending between the said Beatys plaintiffs and David Beaty and John Clark administrators with the Will annexed of David Beaty dec’d and Polly Clark wife of the said John Clark defendants. Thomas Edmiston the agent for the plaintiff James Beaty, and David Beaty and John Clark two of the defendants consent that the examination of John Sturgeon and John Porterfield two witnesses for the said defendants may be taken by virtue of the commission for the plaintiff, and thereupon the said John Porterfield of lawful age being first duly sworn deposeth and saith that he recollects to have had a conversation with James Beaty on the subject in controversy between the parties but the particulars of the conversation he cannot now relate – He remembers that his son James was present at the conversation – further the deponent saith not – Subscribed by him this 21st day of the September 1821
John Porterfield
JOHN STURGEON of lawful age, another witness for the defendants being duly sworn deposeth and saith that he remembers of James Beaty the plaintiff having and claiming as his own, a horse of a brownish colour which had been raised on the plantation of David Beaty his father & he was remarkably hollow backed, but the witness does not know in what way he disposed of him – The witness also remembers that the said James Beaty had another horse which was a bay and a stud horse that was raised on the plantation of David Beaty dec’d, which the said James traded to his brother John for part of a set of smiths tools, in which there was he thinks an anvil and vi__, and there might have been more tools, but he does not know of any more particularly – The witness remembers that the said James Beaty got a cow after he was married and he heard his mother say they had given her to him – The said cow was brindled –
The witness being interrogated by the agent for the plaintiff cannot say as to the year when he had the said horses but remembers he had them both before he was married, and he had the bay stud horse before he had a smiths shop at his fathers, and he had the brown horse mentioned above afterwards – The witness will be thirty-five years of age next February – The witness is of opinion that he could not have been more than twelve or thirteen years of age when the said James Beaty owned the bay horse above mentioned. The witness does not know whether James Beaty purchased the said horses from his father or not. The witness does not know in what manner James Beaty disposed of the brown horse whether for the use of his father’s family or his own.
The witness was intimate with the family of David Beaty decd about the time James Beaty had the said horse and he would sometimes stay all night at the house of David Beaty, and the boys would frequently tell him of their trading. Thomas Edmiston as agent for the said James Beaty objects to the admission of the evidence of the said John Sturgeon on the ground that he was too young at the time of the transactions to which it relates. Further the deponent saith not – subscribed by him this 21st Sept. 1821.
The commission was two hours employed John Sturgeon
in taking the above for defendants
Andrew Russell
JOHN STEWART of lawful age, a witness for the said James Beaty being sworn deposeth and saith that in the previous will mentioned in the answer of the defendants which was drawn by the witness, Mary Beaty did not devise the slave Delilah, tho she wanted to devise her and thought she had a right to do so, but was prevented by the advice of the witness who expressed his opinion to her that she had no right to devise the said slave. The witness never understood from Mary Beaty that she claimed the said slave Delilah as a gift from her children, but understood from her that she thought she had a right to a share in the undevised property of her husband – Mary Beaty was open in her manner of communicating her affairs to her friends, but never told the witness that she claimed the said slave as a gift from her children. The witness believes he drew the Will of David Beaty decd and is satisfied that James Beaty was married before David Beaty made the will. John Clark and David Beaty admit that James Beaty was married before his father made his will, and that the horses and cow mentioned in John Sturgeon’s deposition was given to James Beaty by his father before the date of the will.
The witness does not recollect at what time David Beaty sent his son James to learn the trade of a black smith, but he saw him at work in the shop of John Sawyers at Col. Dysarts, on how long he continued there he does not recollect, tho he knows he was there a considerable time – and there was a contention between David Beaty and Col. Dysart about the Board of the said James, and he believes that David Beaty paid for the board of James to Col. Dysart, but he does not know it of his knowledge.
The witness understood from persons in the neighborhood that James Beaty intended to sue for a negro boy one of the slaves in controversy, said to be given to Polly Clark one of the defendants by her father, but he never heard him say so, tho he shewed him a law that he thought made against the claim which said James looked at, but made no remark –
The witness understood that the suit of James Beaty was to be for his own benefit and that of the other heirs of his father, but he did not understand that any of the other heirs intended to sue for the boy or that they had talked of it – The witness has heard the report some considerable time before James Beaty removed from this county – at the time he shewed him the law was late in the Summer or early in the fall after he had commenced making preparations to remove – further the deponent saith not – subscribed by him this 21st Sept. 1821
John Stewart
The following partial deposition was entered and then lined out: John Loyd of lawful age another witness for the plaintiff being first duly sworn saith that he heard Mary Beaty say before Armstrong Beaty was married and while they lived together she wished her children could settle their business respecting the estate of her husband before her death
BEATY RYBURN & MATHEW RYBURN of lawful age Witnesses for the plaintiff being first duly sworn depose and say that the land devised to David Beaty by his father is in their opinion worth twelve hundred dollars more than the land given by him to his son James Beaty the plaintiff. They have been raised within a mile of the premises and are well acquainted with all the lands and improvements.
Beaty Ryburn saith that he heard some time before James Beaty removed that he intended to sue for the slaves in controversy but how long before he does not now recollect. And on the Sunday before he started they were walking together from meeting when the witness asked the plaintiff James if he had brought suit, who said he had the court before. The plaintiff did not state to the witness that he had given notice to the defendants that he would sue. Further the deponents saith not – subscribed by them the 21st Sept. 1821
Eight hours for the plaintiff including [small print cannot read]
Andrew Russell
Beattie Ryburn
Mathew Ryburn
Taken before the subscriber at the place aforesaid this 21st day of Sept. 1821
Andrew Russell
John Sturgeon claimed one days attendance as a witness for the defts – no other of the witnesses claimed any attendance
Andrew Russell