Ned: Freedom Suit, Charles City County (Part 6 of 6)
Zoom in to read each word clearly.
Some images may have writing in several directions. To rotate an image, hold down shift-Alt and use your mouse to spin the image so it is readable.
Ned & others vs Booker et } The pltfs at this time ask a decree setting the question of title to the land - The pltfs claim under Geo Moore the deft under John Moore George and John, both claim proves their father It is admitted, that George was entitled to all the land, except 30 acres - these are claimed both by John & George, it seems to be admitted, that the 30 acres were given John upon condition, that he gave George a common education, had him taught at least to read & write. It is insisted that John is entitled altho' admitted he did not give George any education, because it was Georges own fault but the testimony is far from satisfactory, that John did what might reasonably have been expected to accomplish the wish of his father in educating in George, and unless he did this, he has no pretence of claim, the testimony certainly dont establish it; The proofs shew that George Moore always claimed this land they shew also that John claimed it - The proofs also shew that George died in possession of the whole land & had been in possession since the year 1798 - up to this suit a period of near 40 years - so that however the question might now be decided upon the [cordince?], Georges right is protected by time, 25 years will give title against all the world. See Sep. Oct 1830 or 31. Supplement R. C. p. 262, Sec 2 The trustee appointed to sue this land under the former decree reported that a claim to a portion of this land was appointed by the deft, that in consequence, thereof, he did not sue, being satisfied the Interests of the Pltfs would be sacrificed, if he sold under the circumstances - see his report We ask decree setting the title and ordering a sale. To the Hon Jas Simple Judge Sup Ct K & Qu } Jno. B. [Clenhan?] pq The only appearance of anything like Testimony to shew that John had possession any time is the deposition of Jno. Bland if he proves his testimony is contradicted by the whole mass of testimony in the case - but he even don't prove [adversary/?] possession, but if he does his testimony would be taken against everything else in the cause J B [Clenhan?]