52 Ancestors #14: Mammes Poissot, Royal Notary at Strasbourg

Tucked away in the manuscript archives of the Badische Landesbibliothek (Baden State Library) in Karlsruhe, Germany, is a folio titled Karlsruhe 517.  It contains an assortment of French records relating to the town of Strasbourg during the 18th century.  Number 49 consists of the following catalogue entry:

49.  Nomination à la place de greffier en la Marechaussée d'Alsace: Mammetz Poissot (Poisot) 1714 (Abschrift)

Both the name, date and place are consistent with information appearing in the Natchitoches church records pertaining to Remy Poissot dit Bourguignon, a Dijon native whose marriage in 1737 to the widowed Anne Marie Philippe states that he is "son of Mammes Poisot, royal notary at Stratsbourg".  A greffier, or clerk, often did perform the duties of a notary, and as all of the documents in the folio in Karlsruhe pertain to Strasbourg, document number 49 is quite possibly Mammes Poissot's initial appointment there.  The maréchaussée system was overseen by the marshals of France and served in the function of magistrates to maintain order.  A summary of the functions of the maréchaussée can be found in The Institutions of France Under the Absolute Monarchy, 1598-1789, Volume 2 by Roland Mousnier, pages 105-109.

52 Ancestors #13: Thomas Franklin Herring, Apothecary

This photograph is of my great-great-great grandfather, Thomas Franklin Herring, with his youngest son Lewis Barclay Herring.  I estimate the picture to date from around 1875, as Lewis was born in November of 1873.  Thomas was born in Florida on 12 September 1833 to John and Mary (Foreman) Herring.    By the 1850s he arrived in Texas, where he married a young widow, Eliza Ann (Rigsby) Barclay, and they had the following children: Marcia, Charles, James Clinton, Cora, Lawrence Rice, and Lewis Barclay.  Thomas had an apothecary shop in Tyler County, Texas and also composed music in his free time.  He died in Overton, Texas on 4 Feb 1881 and is buried in the Overton Cemetery.

52 Ancestors #12: John M. Gill - Chiselling at the Brick Wall

One of my "brick wall" ancestors is John M. Gill of South Carolina.  Born about 1803, he later lived in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas, where he ended up in Cherokee County.  There's a lot I don't know about him, but two questions in particular are priorities for me in my research.

1.  Who was his first wife?

The marriage records of Shelby County, Tennessee, show that he married Lucy Pearce 10 May 1845.  John had children who were born before 1845, so Lucy wouldn't have been their mother.  So who was?  Taking into account that the oldest child, Emily, was born in 1832 and in Tennessee, according to the 1850 census, I searched for marriages in Tennessee or South Carolina prior to 1832.  One hit in particular jumped out at me:  a marriage between a John M. Gill and Jane Clayton in Maury County, TN in 1831.  The reason it particularly stood out was the name Clayton.  One of John's sons, John James (J.J.) Gill, had a daughter named Fannie Clayton Gill.  Fannie's mother, Sarah Catherine (Sallie) Dotson, was a daughter of Josiah Dotson and none of my information on the Dotson family has any Claytons.  Clayton also seems an unusual name for a daughter, unless it happens to be a family name, so I had surmised that Clayton might have been a name from J.J.'s family.  If so, the Maury County marriage record could be a promising lead worth some further investigation, as it's definitely the right time and place and has the right groom's name.

2.  Where did John M. Gill's family come from?

I actually do have a pretty good idea.  One big hint is in the Gill household of the 1850 Shelby County census.  Below the names of the immediate members of the Gill family is that of Thomas Kelsey, aged 25 and a laborer.  Thomas was actually a member of the family, as he had married John's daughter Emily on 29 May 1850.  Thomas's ancestry went back to Samuel Kelso Sr., who had settled in Chester County, SC nearly a century earlier with other Scots-Irish families (including Gills) who came over at the same time, most of whom were either already related to the Kelsos by marriage or soon would be.  In fact, both of Thomas's grandmothers were also Gills.  Additionally, his family resided in Maury County, TN in 1830, right around the time of the marriage there between John M. Gill and Jane Clayton!  Given the patterns observed in previous generations of these immigrant families and in those of the Scots-Irish families of Fairfield County I've also researched, Thomas Kelsey marrying another Gill probably isn't entirely coincidental.  An additional clue might also appear in the name of John M. Gill's daughter Lucy's only child, a son named George Mills Gordon.  Might the M. in John's own name have stood for Mills?  The Mills family was another of the Scots-Irish Presbyterian families who settled the Fishing Creek area along with the Kelso/Kelseys and Gills and intermarried with both families.  It's my opinion that John M. Gill probably belonged to a branch of the Gills of Fishing Creek.

Some sources consulted:

1. 1850 United States Census, Shelby County, Tennessee
2. 1830 United States Census, Maury County, Tennessee
3. Ancestry.com. Tennessee State Marriages, 1780-2002 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2008.  Original data: Tennessee State Marriages, 1780-2002. Nashville, TN, USA: Tennessee State Library and Archives. Microfilm.
4. New Summerfield Historical Association, New Summerfield Historical Memories, (Jacksonville, Texas: The Association, 1985).
5. Dr. Mavis Parrott Kelsey, Samuel Kelso/Kelsey, 1720-1796 : Scotch-Irish immigrant and revolutionary patriot of Chester County, South Carolina : his origin, descendents, and related families including newly published information on the Mills, Gill, Pagan, Wylie, Morrow, Jones, Sealy, Jaggers, Reeves, Mauldin, Moore, Stevenson, McAlexander and other families, (Houston: M. P. Kelsey, 1984).

O'Malley v. O'Reilly, continued

I previously posted an article from the Dublin papers concerning the probate case of Mr. James O'Reilly.  Here is another one.

Freeman's Journal, 27 Jan 1874
O'Malley v. O'Reilly-- This matter came before the court on appeal from the decree made by Judge Warren, bearing date 23rd June, 1873, in the Court of Probate, whereby the document bearing date the 4th of May, 1872, was pronounced to be the last will and testament of James O'Reilly, late of Mount Alban, county Dublin.  The plaintiffs were the executors under the said will, and the defendant was the eldest surviving brother of the deceased.  The defences were that the will in question was not duly executed according to the statute, that it was obtained by undue influence of Mrs. O'Malley, the mother of the plaintiff, and others; also that it was revoked by a codicil dated 3rd of October, 1873, and also that it was revoked on the 5th of November, 1873, by the deceased tearing it with the intention of revoking it, and by causing it to be torn with that object.  The plaintiffs filed several applications raising different issues, the principal of which were that the codicil in question was not executed according to the statute, and that it and the other question of revocation were brought about by undue influence.  The issue on these pleadings was whether the paper writing bearing date 4th May, 1872, was the last will of James O'Reilly.  The case was commenced on the 8th, and occupied the court until the 14th of May, and four other issues were substituted for the one on the record, two of which - namely, the 1st and 4th - were found in favour of the plaintiffs, and the jury was discharged by the learned judge from finding on the second and third.  After the trial, the defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.  This application was refused by the judge, by order of the 23rd of June; and on the same day the final decree was pronounced, to the effect mentioned.  From this decree the defendant now appealed, principally on the grounds that the issues found at the trial were not the issues raised on the record, that none of the issues so found were material to the case, and that no issue was found which justified the decree.  Defendant's counsel also relied on the grounds raised at the new trial motion - namely, that the findings were against the evidence and the weight of evidence, and were void in consequence of misdirection.  Counsel for the appellant (the defendant below) -- Mr. Macdonogh, Q.C., Mr. Hemphill, Q.C., and Mr. Curtis, instructed by Mr. P. Rooney.  For the respondent (the plaintiff below) -- Sergeant Armstrong, Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr. John Murray, instructed by Mr. James Plunkett.
The arguments are at hearing.

The "document bearing date the 4th of May, 1872" is possibly the codicil referred to in the previous post which James O'Reilly's brother Laurence was attempting to establish as his brother's final wishes.  The text of this article would indicate his appeal of the previous verdict had succeeded.  This trial indicates a new decision in favor of the O'Malleys.  As in the previous case, Laurence O'Reilly filed an appeal, so this was not to be the final word on the matter.

52 Ancestors #11: François Brunet, The Blacksmith Who Changed Colonial Medical Law

I'm writing about my ancestors for the 52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks challenge.  Please join me in taking a moment to appreciate some of the people who helped me be here today!

When a New Orleans blacksmith died in 1743, no one could have anticipated that it would cause the colonial government of Louisiana to set a precedent in medical law that we take for granted today.  Prior to the death of François Brunet, it was perfectly legal (and common!) to practice medicine without any regulation or license.  Brunet's death would change that in a matter of weeks.

Register entry for Francois Brunet's baptism, Parish of St. Sauveur, Plancöet

François Brunet was born in Plancöet, Brittany to Floriant Brunet and Jeanne Groisel, probably in 1695; his baptism was recorded as taking place on 15 November of that year.¹  By 1727 he had left France and was carrying out his trade in New Orleans on Rue Toulouse.²  The New Orleans parish records record him on 13 November 1731 marrying the widow of a man who died at Natchez, Marie Eleque.³  The stepdaughter he gained from this marriage, Marie Jeanne St. Jean (my 8th great-grandmother) was evidently quite close to the Brunets, so that when her own daughters were born her stepsister Marie Louise Brunet was godmother to both and the namesake of one.⁴  Later church records from Natchitoches regarding these daughters record Marie Jeanne's surname as Brunet rather than St. Jean.⁵  In 1737 Marie Eleque died and François contracted to marry again; he filed an inventory of Marie's succession to account for any property due to her children prior to his remarriage.⁶  This was evidently his third marriage, and records of the council show that his third wife survived him.⁷

The parish entries and records of the council tell us how Brunet lived, and perhaps more importantly to the course of the law itself, they also tell us how he died. On 5 January 1743, Brunet got into an altercation with a farmer named Marin LeNormant and apparently suffered a sword wound to his leg.  He sought treatment from a young naval surgeon, but within a few days was dead.  The authorities in New Orleans evidently concluded that Brunet's wound itself had not been life threatening, and that malpractice on the part of the surgeon was to blame.  As a result, they decreed that in future anyone wishing to practice medicine anywhere in the entire colony of Louisiana must first obtain a license from the government in New Orleans.⁸  The council issued their decree regarding licenses on 19 January, less than two weeks after he died, and additional correspondence between New Orleans and Paris would result in Versailles issuing a pardon for Le Normant on 27 February.⁹

---

1 Parish register of St. Sauveur, Plancöet. Departmental Archives of the Côtes-d'Armor^↩

2 Huber, Leonard V. New Orleans Architecture Volume III: The Cemeteries. (Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Publishing, 1974), 140^↩

3 Earl C. Woods and Charles E. Nolan, eds. Sacramental records of the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans: volume 1, 1718-1750. (New Orleans: Archdiocese of New Orleans, 1984), 97.^↩

4 Woods and Nolan, 44. See entries for "Cave".^↩

5 Mills, Elizabeth Shown. Natchitoches, 1729-1803: abstracts of the Catholic Church registers of the French and Spanish post of St. Jean Baptiste des Natchitoches in Louisiana. (Westminster, MD: Heritage Books, 2007) See entries referencing the younger daughter Marie Louise Cavé (Mme Remy Poissot, Jr) at the births of several of her children. Her parents' names are given in these records as François Cavé and Marie Jeanne Brunet. The New Orleans records show that Marie Jeanne went by St. Jean (her birth father's dit name), not Brunet.^↩

6 "Records of the Superior Council of Louisiana", Louisiana Historical Quarterly 9 (1926): 132. François is listed as tutor (guardian) to children from his marriage to Marie as well as to the children of Marie by her first husband, St. Jean.^↩

7 "Records of the Superior Council of Louisiana", LHQ 21 (1938): 315-6. These abstracts concern a suit filed against Brunet's estate and against the Widow Brunet (Jeanne Hubert) by Brunet's son-in-law Claude Chenier on behalf of his wife, the same Marie Louise Brunet mentioned above who was the godmother of her stepsister's daughters.^↩

8 Stange, Marion. Vital Negotiations: Protecting Settlers' Health in Colonial Louisiana and South Carolina. (Göttingen, Germany: V&R unipress GmbH, 2012), 110-11.^↩

9 Surrey, Nancy Maria Miller. Calendar of manuscripts in Paris archives and libraries relating to the history of the Mississippi Valley to 1803, Volume 2. (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, Dept. of Historical Research, 1926-28), 1001, 1024. The documents here regarding what they term the "Brunet-Marin le Normant affair" date from February 1743.^↩

52 Ancestors #10: Revolutionary War Capt. Micajah Bullock (1745-1828)

I'm writing about my ancestors for the 52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks challenge.  Please join me in taking a moment to appreciate some of the people who helped me be here today!

The flag pictured above was purported by the Bullock family to have been brought home by Captain Micajah Bullock of Granville County, NC from the 1781 Battle of Guilford Courthouse during the American Revolution.  The Guilford Courthouse Flag, as it is known today, now belongs to the North Carolina Museum of History, an affiliate of the Smithsonian, and is not without controversy.  While a Smithsonian textile expert, Grace Rogers Cooper, concluded in the 1970s it was more likely to predate the War of 1812 rather than the Revolution, one of the museum's curators, Al Hoilman, has provided his own argument supporting the Bullock family tradition.  It is certainly known to have belonged to the Bullocks, as it was donated by Capt. Bullock's son Edward to a Freemasons' lodge, who in turn gave it to the museum in 1914.

Micajah Bullock was born in 1745 in Hanover, Virginia, son of Edward Bullock of New Kent County, Virginia.  By 1769 he was in Granville County, North Carolina, where he married Frances Pryor on the 21st of June of that year.  He held various posts in the county including entry taker, sheriff, surveyor, and bondsman. He is listed among North Carolina captains during the Revolution and was also a veteran of the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge in February 1776.  Later that year, he wrote a letter to the company's colonel, Ebenezer Folsome, regarding disputes over company pay and requesting the colonel's assistance in settling the matter. After the war, he went back home to resume his life among his family as one of the prominent landowners of the county.  He died in either 1827 or 1828, and is memorialized by a marker in the burial ground of Bullock United Methodist Church in Creedmoor, North Carolina.  His name lives on in a Raleigh-based DAR chapter and in the church his family founded in 1832 on a tract of land originally granted to Micajah.

Micajah's daughter, Nancy Ann Bullock, was my 4x great grandmother.  She married Knight Dalby of Granville County and with her sons went on to found the town of Dalby Springs in Bowie County, Texas.

Guilford Courthouse flag photo courtesy Artifacts Collections of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

O'Malley v. O'Reilly

Today's notes come to us courtesy of the 19th century Dublin papers, relating to the probate case of O'Malley v. O'Reilly, wherein a surviving brother of James O'Reilly, Esq. of Dundrum sued the executors of his brother's estate.

Freeman's Journal, 15 May 1873

COURT OF PROBATE.

(Before the Right Hon. Judge Warren and a City Special Jury.)

O'Malley v O'Reilly -- This suit, which has been at hearing since Thursday, was resumed yesterday and concluded.  It was instituted to establish the will of the late Mr James O'Reilly, of Mount Alban, Dundrum, county Dublin, which bore date the 4th November, 1871.  The testator died in November following, leaving property to the amount of about 9,000l.  He was formerly a gentleman farmer in the county Meath, but had lately retired from business, having invested a good deal of money in funds and stock, consisting chiefly of bank and railway shares.  He died unmarried.  By the will referred to the testator left over 4,000l worth of shares in the Royal Bank to the mother of the plaintiffs, who were distant relations, a small legacy to their brother, the Rev John O'Malley, one of the clergymen of Westland row Chapel, and the residue principally to the plaintiffs themselves, and to his brother, the Rev Mr O'Reilly.  The testator died at the age of about sixty years.  The plaintiffs, who are young men, lived with their mother and sisters near Santry, in the county Dublin.  The will was contested by Mr Laurence O'Reilly, M D, of Ratoath, county Meath, a brother of the deceased.  He disputed it partly on the grounds of undue influence, partly upon the alleged circumstance that the testator, on the 5th of November, eleven days before his death, came to the office of the solicitor who prepared the will and tore his signature off it.  A codicil, dated the 4th of May, 1872, was also relied upon by the defendant as revocation of the will, and which disposed of his property otherwise.  This codicil the plaintiffs disputed on the grounds of incapacity and undue influence.
Counsel for plaintiffs -- Sergeant Armstrong, Mr Falkiner, QC; and Mr Murray, instructed by Mr Plunket.  Counsel for defendant -- Mr Macdongoh, QC; Mr Hemphill, QC, and Mr Curtis, instructed by Mr Rooney.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, establishing the will. 

I have a few more clippings related to this case, which I will post individually.