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]

Washington county 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 mentioned to come before me at the courthouse of Washington county on behalf of John Clark administrator with the Will annexed of David Beaty dec’d and David Beattie in a certain matter of controversy in the said court depending between James Beaty & Elizabeth Beaty widow of Armstrong Beaty dec’d and William Beaty infant son of the said Armstrong and Elizabeth by her the said Elizabeth his mother and next friend heirs of the said David Beaty dec’d plaintiffs, and the said John Clark and Polly his wife and David Beaty dec’d defendants on the 21st day of March 1821

     EDWARD HUTTON a witness for the defendants of lawful age being first duly sworn deposeth and saith that he was appointed by the court of the said county of Washington with Thomas Edmiston and John Porterfield to settle the administration account of John Clark adm with the Will annexed of David Beaty, they met at the house of John Clark probably a year ago for the purpose of settling the account at which time James Beaty was present and the deponent did not hear the said James make any objections to the vouchers submitted to the commissioners to support said Clarks disbursements of the estate – The deponent saw James Beaty looking at the papers laid before the commissioners but does not know that he examined the vouchers minutely, - The commissioners did not on that day finish the settlement, and by a subsequent order William Snodgrass was added to the commissioners for settling said estate – some time afterwards the commissioners met again at the house of John Clark to finish the settlement, that the same vouchers were before the commissioners at the first meeting that were before them at the second meeting except two small clerks tickets, that they found the settlement of the accounts at the first meeting correct as far as they had proceeded.

James Beaty was not present at the second meeting when the account was finished nor did any person attend on his behalf – The witness knows that the said James Beaty worked at the black smiths trade at his fathers before his marriage, but cannot be certain how long, but supposed he might have worked there two years. The deponent thinks it probable he might have done his fathers black smiths work, but does not know that he did, and does not know that the said James received any compensation from his father for doing his smith work – The said James Beaty lived with his father while he worked there like another of his family but the deponent does not know that David Beaty his father received any compensation from the said James for boarding.

The winter before the commencement of the present suit the deponent heard James Beaty propose to John Clark and David Beaty to leave the matter in dispute to the opinion of Wm [or Mr] Estill and another attorney, and said if they did not come on to court and have the matter in dispute settled he would certainly bring suit against them – David Beaty and John Clark did not appear satisfied with the proposition, and it appeared to the deponent that both parties were a little warm – The deponent thinks it was about the first of October 1820 that James Beaty started to move to Missouri. further the deponent saith not – subscribed by him this ___ March 1821
                                   Edward Hutton

The commissioner was two hours employed in taking this deposition