James Love
A yet undefined branch of the Love Family Tree

Imbedded in our story are discrepancies that have forever troubled Love family historians. It has been written that after the death of his first wife Mary Ingram, James Love married second to Ester Belle Carriker. And from that union late in his life was born children Darling, Hartwell, Pleasant and Sarah “Sally” Nica Love. But whom was the other James Love listed among the soldiers mustered in for service in the War of 1812? And in 1820, when the census should have reflected the aging James and what would be his second family, the census instead lists a young James Love, married, and with children of age to be Darling, Pleasant, Hartwell and Nica. And with source unknown in support of the marriage of James and Ester Bell Carricker, a marriage bond filed in Cabarrus County introduces us to James Love who by that record we know married Polly Tucker. And it has always been this record that opens the door to doubt in how we have understood our early ancestors.

Without notice or fanfare, I recently received in the mail a letter that unravels this mystery. Helen Tucker Obermeier retuned to her homeland in Stanly County where in the early1990’s she sought to learn about her Love family heritage. Also having doubts about traditional interpretation of the life of James Love, Helen carried the search to higher ground. She wrote to Washington DC in search of any available files on James Love who served in the War of 1812. What she received is without doubt awesome. And in a letter written to me, Helen states “James and Mary [Polly Tucker] are my ace card!” Knowing well the personal reward of genealogy is the chinking away of that ancestral brick wall, I thankfully recognize Helen as she has removed a key obstacle in her discovery of two land bounty warrants. In light of these newly found records, the following collaborative effort reflects the life of James and Polly Tucker Love.

The Life of James Love
...an undefined branch of our Love family Tree

As a militiaman, on October 1809, James Love was drawn from the Company of Captain Evan S. Wiley to serve as juror in the Cabarrus County Court. The older James Love would have been roughly 65 years of age in 1809. At that age, would his name have been listed and drawn among those men serving in a militia? This court appointment possibly refers to the younger James Love.

Dated 21 Jul 1813, James Love and Polly Tucker filed for a marriage bond in Cabarrus County NC. Abram [Abraham] Bost served as bondsman. James Love’s signature on this bond may have value in comparison of documents knowingly signed by the elder James Love of Cabarrus County. Organized a year later in August of 1814, the name James Love appears within the roster of North Carolina Sixth Militia detached for service in the War of 1812. The unit was under the command of Captain Evan S. Wiley. This is the same unit for which the courts drew the name James Love in 1809 for service as a juror. There are no further records for the younger James until in 1820 he is enumerated in Cabarrus County as follows:

James Love, page 26
2m0-10, 1m26-45 // 1f16-26 // 10 slaves
So James Love provided the census taker with a birth date being sometime between 1775 and 1794. His wife was born sometime between 1794 and 1804. The family is living near Archibald White and George Tucker. Looking further back in time, this younger James Love does not appear in any earlier census records. Since the census does not stipulate relationships, prior to his marriage, James was likely working for another man and thus was likely recorded within that household. In 1810 the elder James Love is enumerated in Cabarrus County as:
James Love, page 385
1m45+ // 1f45+ // 20 slaves
David Kiser, George Kiser Sr., James Long and John Reed are neighbors. In 1820 this James Love is not enumerated in the census. But one year later, in 1821, an obituary marks the death for James Love who died at age 76. So just as one James was young and living in the home of another in 1810, it appears that in 1820 the aged James Love was no longer head of his own household.

Leaving no discernable land records, James and Polly Tucker Love seem to vanish after the 1820 census. And yet enumerated with 10 slaves in 1820, we have known forever that there must be some kindred link to the elder James Love who owned 20 slaves ten years prior. Or . . .many of us simply stuck our heads in the sand and explained away the discrepancy as a mistake made by the 1820 census taker. In support of this latter belief, during the 1820’s, court records in Cabarrus County named a James Love who wrote a last will and testament. And as luck would have it, neither the will nor loose estate papers survive. But found within the court records, an entry indicates “Henry Shore” raised a petition against the estate of James Love, deceased. Knowing that elder James Love’s daughter Elizabeth married Henry Shore, all such records have been painted as being equally relevant only to the death and estate of James Love who died in 1821 at age 76. But as will be shown, this just may not be the case. Before delving into the information provided by Helen, let’s look back at one other record.

Cabarrus County was formed in 1792. My friend John B. Hagler found a petition to the North Carolina State General Assembly that sought support for the construction of public buildings. Though undated, wording relative to events indicate the petition was penned ca. 1794. In this petition are the respective signatures of Jeames Love, Thomas Love, Charles Love and Jeames Love, Junier. Knowing Jeames Love’s wife is Mary Ingram, and also knowing of a James Love who left a will in 1837 Campbell County GA naming a son Ingram Love, I instantly assumed this was bordering on proof connecting James of Georgia as being the son of our James and Mary Love. …Whew! But tradition within that family is not supportive as belief has their James living in South Carolina by 1790. So, could James Love who married Polly Tucker have been the signer “Jeames Love Junier?” Since Jeames Jr. was the last signer in line, would this have indicated he was the younger of the children? It seems the legal age to sign such petition would have been 21. Would James Love who married Polly Tucker have been born ca. 1773? And therefore would a 40 year-old man have served as private in the War of 1812? I think not. If this signer is the same James who married Polly Tucker, and if he is the son of James Love who married Mary Ingram, then he was represented on the petition older than his actually age. This very well may be the case as the Love signatures were penned in the same hand and yet in style and spelling not like any other attributable to our Love family.

James Love
...Soldier in the War of 1812

Dated 3 Sep 1858, 62 year-old “Mary Brooks” applied for bounty land she believed due her on behalf of military services rendered by her deceased husband James Love in the War of 1812. In the two-page affidavit, Mary states she and James Love married 10 Aug 1813. And “…her name before said marriage was Mary [Polly] Tucker.” James and Mary were married by Isaiah Spiers, Justice of Peace of Cabarrus County. Two years later James Love enlisted about 10 Aug 1815 in Concord, Cabarrus County NC. In Captain Evan Shelby Wiley’s Company under the command of Col. McDaniel, James Love served for fifteen days until being honorably discharged 2 Mar 1815 at Wadesboro in Anson County. The unit returned home due to ratification of peace with Great Britain. Mary states that her husband James Love “died on Rocky River [at his residence] on the 8th day of April 1825.” Mary Tucker Love married 16 Sep 1828 David Brooks in Montgomery County. They were married by John Little, Justice of the Peace. And Mary goes on to state that said husband David Brooks died about 1 Aug 1842. G. H. Honneycutt and Jonah Love witnessed the affidavit. Further testimonies were provided by 80 year-old Jonah Love, 72 year-old John Barba, 55 year-old Daniel Hartsell, and 48 year-old George H. Honneycutt.

In 1830 David and Mary Brooks are enumerated in Montgomery County NC as:

1830 Montgomery County NC,
David Brooks, page 46

1m0-5, 1m40-50 // 1f0-5, 1f10-15, 1f30-40 // 3 slaves
Born in the 1780’s, David Brooks is the son of William Brooks I. As per his tombstone, William Brooks died 1818 and is buried at Brooks-Hill Cemetery on Buster Road in now Stanly County. Since he died prior to the marriage of son David, and since his estate record was burned in the courthouse fire of pre-Stanly Montgomery County, there is no information that can be gleaned to help us further define his son David Brooks. And there is no surviving land grants, deeds, or other court records in Montgomery County in the name of David Brooks. But as his widow Mary states, her husband David died “about 1 Aug 1842.” A year earlier Stanly County was formed from the western portion of Montgomery County NC. Dated 25 Jul 1842, David Brooks wrote his last will and testament that was probated in the August Session of the newly formed Stanly County Court. David first considers his wife “Polly” in providing for her all the household and farm items. Without giving names, he bequeaths the residue of his estate to “all his children” in the event his wife should die or remarry. And he orders his executor to divide any remaining residue “with my wife and children and Lydia the daughter of my wife not being an heir in law.” He stipulates “ I give and bequeath to her an equal part with my wife and children in the above devised property.” Witnessed by John F. Tucker and A. Ledbetter, David Brooks appointed “friend Andrew Honeycutt my Executor…” Dated 7 Sep 1842, Alfred Ledbetter posted notice of the estate sale at his house, the house of Nancy Hearn and the shop house of Jacob Hartsell. Buyers at the ensuing sale include John I. Love and Jacob Tucker. Dated 11 Feb 1846, Sheriff Edward W. Davis sold to Daniel Freeman 100 acres (1-81, Stanly County NC) on Rocky Branch of Rocky River. Adjoining Austin road and the lands of A. Ledbetter and Hezekiah Whitley, the lands of “Mary Brooks” was ordered to be sold as a means of settling a debt of $24.23 owed said Freeman. The estate of David Brooks was not settled until the mid 1890’s.

In 1850 Stanly County, the widow Mary Brooks is enumerated as:

50 Mary Brooks
22 Joshua
20 King D.
17 Alexander
15 Jane
12 William
10 James
Living nearby is 24 year-old Lydia Brooks. So it appears Lydia was born ca. 1826 after the 1825 death of James Love. She appears in the 1830 census as female under the age of five years of age. Declared not to be the daughter of David Brooks, could Lydia be the daughter of Mary’s first husband James Love?

Dated 9 Mar 1878, Mary Brooks of Big Lick in Stanly County again applies for a Service Pension. And on 23 Nov 1878 her attorney was notified that the application was again rejected “by reason of no service of soldier [during war] and remarriage of claimant.” The document is identifiable by the warrant number 84461-160-55. The number 84461 identifies a claim for 160 acres of Bounty Land by Act of Congress in the year 1855. Though her first application is stamped and identified to be rejected, Mary states in this second application that “she heretofore made an application for Bounty Land and received the same.” Under a section entitled “Incidental Matter,” the application records the following:

Papers in the B. L. [Bounty Land] case of Mary Brooks show that she obtained B. L. W. [Bounty Land Warrant] as widow of James Love, who died in 1822, and she afterwards married David Brooks who died in 1842. Declaration made before Justice of the Peace; informal medical certificate inclosed.”
So it appears that somehow Mary may have received land for her deceased husband’s service. And where in the earlier application Mary states her husband died in 1825, now she says he died 1 Apr 1822. And her words are witnessed by George H. Honneycutt and son-in-law William R. Honneycutt. William married daughter Lydia Brooks in 1851. After viewing a record provided him, the Clerk of Superior Court for Stanly County also states: “James Love and Mary Tucker was married April 20th 1814. James Love died April 1st 1822.” Mary Tucker Love Brooks died just a bit more than one month after learning that her second application for pension was turned down. She died 31 Dec 1878. Mary is buried at Brooks-Hill Cemetery not far below Love’s Chapel where many of our Love family are buried. There is no surviving obituary or court record to mark her life and estate after death. I gratefully acknowledge the Brooks Family page as the source for information on the descendants and ancestry of David Brooks. And as for James and Mary Tucker Love, the story has just begun…

James Love: implications and speculations

James Love’s wife Mary applied three times for widow’s benefit on behalf of his service in the War of 1812. Though not documented beyond the written record of her verbal testimony, in 1858 Mary stated that she previously applied for bounty land and that a warrant had been issued for the same. Also in 1858, Mary states that James Love“died on Rocky River [at his residence] on the 8th day of April 1825.” Jonah Love and other witnesses echoed the exact date and circumstances surrounding the death of James Love. And twenty years later in 1878, Mary again applied for service pension. But this time she states her deceased husband died earlier, being 1st Apr 1822. George H. Honeycutt and her son-in-law William R. Honeycutt witnessed the affidavit filed by the aged Mary “Brooks.” This three year discrepancy in the reported death date proves critical in how we interpret Cabarrus County court and estate records filed in the name of “James Love”.

Published 24 April 1821 in The Western Carolinian, the following obituary eulogizes a James Love:

In Cabarrus county, on Sunday morning, the 15th of April, the Rev. James Love, in the 76th year of his age. Mr. Love belonged to that denomination of Christians called Anti-pedo-Baptists. He was a true Whig in the Revolutionary War.
Obviously representing a much older gentleman, the timing of this obituary also predates both death dates declared on behalf of James Love who served in the War of 1812. Beginning January 1824, we know that Alphonso Alexander, William Crayton, and Moses Archibald were appointed by the court to settle the estate of James Love. Court records indicate this elder James Love left a will that has not survived. He apparently appointed Sheriff John McClellan executor, but John died before the estate was settled. In April of 1824, the court also appointed Alphonso Alexander to be the Administrator of the estate of “John McClellan, deceased.” But during the same time period, there seems to be too many administrators involved for one estate. In 1824 George Tucker was also appointed by the court to "Administer" the estate of James Love. James and William Petry posted a $10,000 security bond. And in October 1824, George Tucker was appointed Guardian for “Darling, Pleasant, Hartwell S., and Sally N. Love.” George and John Reid posted a $4,000 security bond. George Tucker made a “Return of estate for minor heirs by guardian” in January 1825. Is what has been believed to be one estate really two? And just how should we attribute these records?

Assuming for discussion that James and Polly Tucker are the parents of Darling, Pleasant, Hartwell, and Sally N. Love, let’s see how the records could play out....

First, the 1820 census enumerates James Love with four children of proper age and sex to be Darling and siblings. And now we believe from the bounty record that James died in 1822. And yet a year earlier the elder James Love passed. In October of 1825, Henry Shore petitioned the estate of James Love. We can positively link this petition to the elder James Love as we know Henry married his daughter Elizabeth. But a few months before Henry petitioned the estate, in Jul 1825, “Darling Love & Others” filed suit in Cabarrus County against James Hagler. We know from court records that James Hagler is a grandson of elder James Love. Dated 22 Jan 1821, James Hagler made a legal agreement (10-328, Cabarrus NC) with his Grandfather James Love. Between “James Love and his grandson James Hagler,” the agreement stated that the said James Hagler:

“ . . . is by bargain to move his grandfathers barn from where it now stands & build it again over the hollow by the crib & is to find covering & new logs if there is any wanting to repair with –The agreement of this bargain this that the sd. Jas. Hagler is to have a certain piece of land lying on the west side of Rocky River joining Michael Garman Wm Bost John Carathers Geo. Garman & Jos. Howel & if not complied with it will be of none effect & if complied with the sd. Jas. Hagler is to have the land more or less.”
It appears that George Tucker, the guardian of Darling and his siblings, likely did not know of the agreement and therefore the suit was raised in order to obtain their fair share. This is somewhat supported in the fact that the agreement dated 22 Jan 1821 between James Love and grandson James Hagler was not filed in court until Apr 1826. And note that the deed was not filed until after the suit raised by Darling was settled. And dated 5 Feb 1828, it appears James Hagler purchased more land from the estate.“Geo Tucker Exr. Of James Love Ser deeded to James Hagler Jr., 165 acres adjoining the lands of Jospeh Howell, John White, and Garman.

Our family history is built upon the belief that elder James Love married Ester Carriker shortly after the death of his first wife Mary Ingram. And it has been believed that the children Darling, Pleasant, Hartwell, and Sally Nica are the children of Ester and James. And after elder James died in 1821, from marriage bonds in Cabarrus County, we know that an “Ester Love” did indeed marry George Tucker in 1822. And this makes sense as if Ester is truly the mother of the Love children, then it would only be natural that her new husband George Tucker would be appointed guardian. But there is a problem. If before his death, the elder James Love made an agreement with his grandson James Hagler, would not Ester have known about it? And if she did, why would the legal guardian, her next husband George Tucker, have allowed the suit raised by Darling Love to go forward? But if Ester were not previously married to James Love, or if she were not there at the time of the agreement, then it would be possible for George Tucker to have pressed forward on behalf of those minors he represented.

Some folk also believe that the elder James Love’s son Thomas had a son James by a first wife. I have found no proof to substantiate this belief. But it is said that this James is the one who married Mary Tucker. Looking at the 1820 census, we know that James had minor children of the age to be Darling and siblings. And yet Darling raises suit against James Hagler clearly related to the estate of the elder James Love. And yet at the time, elder James Love’s son Thomas was still alive and active in the community. If Darling and his siblings are the grandchildren of Thomas Love, what right would they have in their great-grandfather’s estate while their grandfather is still living? It appears if Darling and siblings are the children of James and Polly Love, then there is no way James could be the son of Thomas Love.

From shear gut reaction and the timing of the court records in early Cabarrus County, it appears James may be the son of elder James Love. And Darling and his siblings are in turn the children of this younger James Love and wife Mary “Polly” Tucker. And what about the traditional belief that elder James married second the much younger Ester Belle Carriker? This could be the case, and as has been said, Ester could have given birth to Darling and siblings. But who is Esther? Finding no substantiating proof, we have to question whether or not she was really married to elder James Love? Instead of being his wife, could Ester have been yet another child of elder James Love? Instead of Darling and his siblings being the children of elder James Love, what if it were Ester who was a daughter? We know from marriage bonds that George Tucker married “Ester Love” 16 Nov 1822. I can imagine that as the daughter of wealthy James Love, Ester would have been a prize catch for any man of the day. If Esther were the sister to the younger James who married Mary Tucker, then it only makes sense that Ester and George would be appointed legal guardians of the children. The 1830 Cabarrus County census leads us to believe the minor children were taken in and actually lived with George and Ester:

1830 Cabarrus County NC
George Tucker

1m5-10, 2m10-15 // 2f5-10 // 8 slaves
And in Jan 1835, a confusing court entry indicates George Tucker made a legal return (A-339, P & Q, Cabarrus County NC) to the “estate of Love’s heirs.” The entry reads:
Return of the estate of Love’s heirs by the guardian George Tucker
Land Rent to Esther Tucker $15.00
For some reason in 1835, a need existed for the guardian George Tucker to make a return to “Love’s heirs.” Keeping in mind the minor heirs were now coming of legal age, Esther paid $15.00 in rent for land evidently held in the hands of the guardian George Tucker. He being her husband, she paid him and then he in turn made return to the “Estate of Love’s heirs.” So while some of the children may not have been of age, George may have paid out at that time money to Darling Love.

And still admitting that Esther indeed could have been a younger second wife of elder James Love, it appears more likely that she is a sister to James Love who married Mary Tucker. So what would have been the normal reaction, when James Love died after his service in the War of 1812, his sister and her husband helped out as only they could. And yet knowing that Mary Tucker Love lived on and married second in 1828 to David Brooks, the bounty warrant application and David’s will point as to why James Love’s children remained so heavily represented by George Tucker.

Within his last will and testament written in 1842, David Brooks stipulated that the residue of his estate should be distributed among “my wife and children and Lydia the daughter of my wife not being an heir in law.” He further stated “ I give and bequeath to her an equal part with my wife and children in the above devised property.” Believing Mary’s children born to James Love are enumerated in 1830 within the household of George Tucker, let’s look back again at the 1830 Montgomery County census for David Brooks:

1830 Montgomery County NC,
David Brooks, page 46

1m0-5, 1m40-50 // 1f0-5, 1f10-15, 1f30-40 // 3 slaves
From this record and the 1850 census, we know that Mary’s daughter Lydia was born ca. 1825. If James Love died in 1822, and knowing Mary married second David Brooks in 1828, then the father of Lydia is neither David Brooks nor James Love. Is this the reason for the discrepancy in the death dates of James Love as presented in Mary’s two bounty applications? Was Mary trying to hide the possible fact that she may have had a child out of wedlock? And would that have made void any chance of her receiving the Bounty Warrant? Just after the 1850 census, Lydia Brooks married 14 Mar 1851 William R. Honeycutt. Note in 1878, one of the subscribing witnesses in the second bounty application was Lydia’s husband William R. Honneycutt.

Looking back to Darling, Pleasant, Hartwell and Sally Nica, what legacy was left to them by their father . . . and Grandfather? Not being able to fully distinguish between land records for the two men named James Love, land in Arkansas may hold a key. In the book NORTH CAROLINA GENEALOGY edited by Helen Leary, she writes: Researchers who discover pre-1852 North Carolina Wills or estate that mention “Land in Missouri,” or Arkansas, or Illinois, should be alert to the possibility that this was a bounty for War of 1812 service under federal, rather than state, authority. Knowing the Loves and Brooks settled in Pope County AR, one must ask if any of that land was granted by bounty warrants for service in the War of 1812?

Whether or not James and Polly Tucker Love actually owned land is debatable. But believing that their children are Darling, Pleasant, Heartwell, and Sarah Nica Love; these children eventually grew up to create their own life records. For all three of the male children, each owned and later sold land on the east side of Rocky River near present day Garman Mill Road. And Sally married William A. Burkhead. He too owned land in the same area that is traceable back to lands purchased by James Love. And all of these children with exception of Hartwell, sold their lands before moving on to Arkansas. Hartwell moved up to the area of Barringer Mine and later to Iredell County NC. And finally, for all these children, there are no records indicating exactly how they acquired their lands. With one exception, it is my belief that most of the land entered first into the hands of the elder James Love. From there, it may have passed without deed to James and Polly. And if not, it certainly passed to the hands of Darling and his siblings via the estate settlement of either their father or grandfather. This depending on if James is really the son of James Love who died at age 76 in 1821.

Who was Mary “Polly” Tucker?

We know for sure that “Esther Love” married George Tucker III in 1822. And believing that Esther may be a sister to James Love who married Polly Tucker, I wondered if Polly and George were also brother and sister? Knowing little of the Tucker family history, I quickly turned to Helen Tucker Obermeier. She has been pondering on this for years. From Bible and other legal source records, she says emphatically that Mary is not the sister of George Tucker III. His lineage is known forward and backward. But there is little known of his first cousins who also grew up in the area. Looking at records attributable to Mary Tucker Love Brooks, there are hints that she may indeed be a first cousin. Let’s take a look:

When David Brooks wrote his last will and testament, it was John F. Tucker who witnessed the instrument. His identity is unknown. However, Helen Obermeier suspects he is Mary’s brother. Also witnessing the will is Alfred Ledbetter. Alfred lived next door. Following the death of David Brooks, it was Alfred who posted signs advertising the estate sale. Purchasers at the estate sale included Jacob and John F. Tucker. Note in the 1830 census, David Brooks lived in Montgomery County near the residences of Louis Tucker and Jacob Tucker.

David Brooks had a younger brother names James. James also served in the War of 1812. Living on the Rocky River where it served as the line between Montgomery and Anson County, we know that James served in a unit raised in Anson County. James married Temperance Jane Tucker ca. 1822. James Brooks died young, leaving a will probated in 1829 Montgomery County. And prior to 1850, most of the children of James Brooks moved to Pope County Arkansas along with Darling Love. Again we have to ask whether or not Temperance received bounty land for the services of her deceased husband? And not being allowed to sale the land, was it inherited by the children? Is the reason for their move west?

Following the death of James Brooks, Tempy Tucker Brooks married second Mr. Alfred Ledbetter. Remember that Alfred lived next door and witnessed David Brooks last will and testament. Was Tempy the sister of Mary Tucker who first married James Love and then David Brooks? And was John F. Tucker their brother? Not knowledgeable of Tucker, Brooks, and Ledbetter family history, this issue must be left for others to debate.

Issues of Land

In his last will and testament, David Brooks bequeathed all his lands to his wife Mary. In the 1840’s, a string of court entries in early Stanly County led to a court order in which Sheriff Edward W. Davis sold to Daniel Freeman the lands Mary Brooks. Dated 11 Feb 1846, the sheriff sold 100 acres along Austin’s Road on Rocky River. The land adjoined that belonging to B. M. Griffin, A. Ledbeter, Hezekiah Whitley, and Nancy Whitley. The deed indicates the land was sold to pay a debt of $24.20 owed to Daniel Freeman by Mary Brooks. For me this was case closed until recently Priscilla Clark told me the rest of the story. She writes:

. . . Mary Brooks the wife of David Brooks . . . was sued by Daniel Freeman for some purchases she made at Daniel Freeman's store in Albemarle in September of 1842. She bought dressmaking material, hose, a handerkerchief, and two pair of shoes. The bill totaled to $ 24.15. (Daniel Freeman's ledger survived and is at the Stanly County Heritage Room). David died in November of 1842. Undoubtedly Mary didn't have the money to pay this bill or she neglected to do so. Daniel Freeman took her to court for the bill. It was an ongoing lawsuit - was thrown out of court. Freeman had the case reopened. This time the court ruled in his favor. She didn't have the money to pay the bill so Daniel Freeman had Mary and her children evicted from her home because of this debt. She had corn in her fields that was ready to be gathered. Mary, her children, and Andrew Huneycutt went back to her fields and pulled the corn, hauled it away and sold it to a friend for $ 25.00, enough to pay her debt. Daniel Freeman took her back to court because he felt the corn should have belonged to him. He complained that they had even picked the corn on Sunday. The court ruled in his favor.

Her home and 100 acres of land were sold at auction with Daniel Freeman being the highest bidder at $ 9.45. Even though she was a widow with children, he took her home, land, and the rest of her crops for the small debt she owed him.

This ongoing lawsuit is documented in "Abstracts of the Minutes of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of Stanly County - 1841-1850" This Mary Brooks is the only Mary Brooks in the county at the time who fits the circumstances of the case. It seems Daniel Freeman really wanted her land.

Priscilla’s writing is wonderful in that through the inclusion of further records, gives new meaning to what appeared to be a story’s end. And carrying the story a bit further, I was amazed to learn that two related cases reached all the way to the North Carolina State Supreme Court. In the fist case, the above ruling in favor of Daniel Freeman was overturned in Jun 1852. This case was recorded in Supreme Court Records Volume 13, page 321 in the case of Honeycutt vs. Freeman. In part, the entry reads:
In support of the plaintiff he gave evidence . . .that the crop of corn in question was raised by a widow woman by the name of Brooks, on a piece of land, for which the present defendant had brought action of ejectment against her, . . . and had the same executed in autumn, and about three weeks before the crop of corn, being 200 bushels, was ripe enough to be gathered; that Mrs. Brooks, on being turned out of possession, went to reside in a house belonging to the plaintiff, about half a mile from his residence; and that when the corn became fit to be gathered, she she and several of her children, who lived with her, went openly and pulled it and hauled it to her new residence, and there put it in a crib and locked it up, and the plaintiff had nothing to do with the gathering or hauling the corn, though he afterwards purchased it: that the field of corn was on a public road, much traveled, and that Mrs. Brooks and her children pulled it and took it away on Saturday and Sunday, and that, during this time, great numbers of people passed the road, going and returning from a large religious meeting near the place, …that Mrs. Brooks mde her intention to take the the corn publicly known, and borrowed from the plaintiff his wagon and from two other neighbours their horses for the purpose.

On the part of the defendant, . . .advised by an attorney, that the circumstances made the plaintiff guilty of larceny in taking the corn; . . . that the corn had been carried away at night in the plaintiff’s wagon, and deposited in a house of the plaintiff in a private place; and that one Austin passed by as Mrs. Brooks was gathering it, and she concealed herself…

Ruling on behalf of Andrew Honeycutt, Supreme Court Judge C. J. Ruffin ruled in favor of Andrew Honeycutt. He stated:

There was not the least pretence for accusing any one of the parties concerned, and much less the present plaintiff, with larceny. The public manner of taking the corn, with the general knowledge of the neighborhood, and the open and distinct avowal to the defendant of the fact and of a claim of property in the corn, repelled all presumption of an intention to steal. Several answers may be given to the other part of the exception. In the first place, there was evidence, on which the jury might well have found the representation, that Mrs. Brooks hid herself when Austin was passing, was untrue. For, when she showed herself gathering the corn, for two days to hundreds of passengers along a public highway, and made her intentions known to the neighborhood generally, it is a natural inference, that she had no motive for concealing herself from that person Austin, for shich there is no evidence but naked declaration of the defendant himself, who declined to sustain it….


Conclusion: the ancestors and descendants
. . . of James and Polly Tucker

All Love family histories have hinted that elder James had a son named James. Based on naming patterns, our attention has leaned toward a belief that a James Love in Campbell County GA might be this person. And yet James who married Mary Tucker in Cabarrus County NC has always been a thorn irritating any hopes of setting straight this story. But now, and again thanks to Helen Obermeier, we know what happened to James and Polly Tucker Love. And looking for anything that can be used to test or disprove my thoughts, along comes the 80 year-old Jonah Love who witnessed on behalf of Mary as she provided testimony of the life record of James Love. If only Jonah would have said “I am his brother.” . . .but not doing so, we at least know there was tight kinship between Jonah and Mary. With natural reservation, it is my belief, and the belief of Helen Tucker Obermeier, that James Love who married Mary Tucker is the son of the elder James Love. And just as likely, “Esther [Carriker?] Love” may or may not have been the second wife of the elder James Love. And though we may be in error, it is highly likely that Darling, Pleasant, Hartwell, and Sarah Nica Love are the children of James and Polly. With all this in mind, the children of James and Polly Tucker Love are now believed to be:

Darling Love

Pleasant Love

Hartwell Spain Love

Sarah “Sally” Nica Love