Subject :
Wm Dew VS Thomas Viverette
Date :
Thu,
Letter for Helen Sharpe to Raymond Viverette
Ray, This is the paper I was talking about. Too bad it isn't dated. From
this we know that Thomas Viverette and Elizabeth married in April 1774, so
any date for their children would be at least 1775 for the first child. The
other children for Elizabeth and Abraham would be in the time frame of 1764
(md Dec 1763) to bef
Feb 1773 .
the plantation after Abraham died. We know that Elizabeth and Abraham had 4
children listed between the will of Millicent Dew and as stated in this
document. It also proves that Millicent is a sister to William. I don't
believe that Millicent was married. I looked through all the estate records
for
Dews while I was in
that she was. We also know that she was at least 20 when she died in May
1786. At 20 she would have been born in 1766. As for Abraham I think he is
probably a Junior and not a Senior. Some Dew researchers list him as having
4 other older children, but I believe something would have been said about
them if that were true. The other children probably belonged to the other
Abraham who died in 1760 or so. Let me know what you think? Feel free to
share this with anyone you like.
Helen Sharpe
Turn1104@aol.com
The answer of Thomas Viveret & Elizabeth his wife Defendants to the petition
of William Dew exhibited against them in Nash County Court.
The defendants having all legal advantage of exception for answer threto or
so much as they are advised to answer. They answer saying, that they admit
that Abraham Dew this petitioner’s own father died intestate about eighteen
years ago, but not in the year 1770 as alledged by the petitioner, possessed
of a personal estate which appears by the inventory thereto annexed which the
defendants charge was returned by the Defendant Elizabeth after she was
appointed administrix of the said estate as set forth in the petition, as and
for the true inventory of the said estate & they deny that any article was
omitted which ought to have been inserted therein. The Defendents having
intermarried with each other sometime in April 1774 (as well as they
recollect) sold at public venue, all the personal estate of the deceased as
well as they can recollect & they refer the petitioner to the amount thereof
hereto annexed amounting to 288 #.16.3 which the defendant Thomas Vivret
returned to the said court after his intermarriage as aforesaid & as well as
he can recollect the same contains a just account of all the personal Estate
of the said Abraham Dew deceased which was sold as aforesaid & that every
part thereof was sold which could be found on the day of sale & if there
should appear a difference between the inventory & account of sale it may
easily be accounted for by observing that a considerable time elapsed
between the taking of the inventory & account of sales in which time many of
the articles would necessarily be consumed for support of the family & others
would be destroyed by accident & otherwise unavoidably & the deficiency if
any, is in some manner compensated for by an Increase of the number of cattle
& perhaps of other part of the stock between the time of Inventory and
selling; The Defendant Thomas soon after the sale aforesaid returned an
account current with the Estate to the Court of Edgecombe County where the
same was settled & allowed of by the Court, upon which amount there is a
balance of 264 pounds.14.9 due by the Defendants to the Estate, which since
divided amongst the Defendant & the children of the deceased, each child’s
share was 44 #.3.5 there being then alive four Children, the petitioners
share where of being 44 pound 2.5 as aforesaid. The Defendant Thomas
considers himself liable & answerable to him for as his guardian & is ready
to settle & account with him for the years in his guardian amount.
The Defendants further answer that it is true that the Defendant Elizabeth
did use the plantation which was the intestates about one year or perhaps a
little more before the Defendants intermarriage with each other ( but not as
long as the petiitoner alledges) & also one half of the Mill, the other half
then belonging to Arthur Dew, but the defendants do not concur that they
might be accountable to the petitioner for any thing on amount of the
plantation & Mill during the time aforesaid, as during that time, the
Defendant
children (among the rest, the petitioner) were very small and helpless, to
that if any thing was made by her out of the land & mill she fully expended
the same, in maintaining the family provisions to a sale of the Estate as
aforesaid & in fact the profits of the said land & Mill being in bad order &
as great quantity of Land being----------, but besides in Equity & Good
conscious the Defendants contend that they were entittled to a third part of
the profits aforesaid by their right of Dower, so that the remaining two
thirds of the said profits being applied to maintain the children as
aforesaid, which the defendants concurr were properly applied to that
purpose, there being no other sufficient means of supporting them, then the
defendants contend that nothing is due to the petition on this amount, and as
to the petitioner’s claim of a share of his Sister Millicent’s Estate, the
Defendants say, that the Defendant Thomas was appointed her guardian long
before her death & in consequence thereof held in his hands her share of the
Estate aforesaid which thereupon being vested in her & she having a few days
privious to her death, to wit, on the (blank) day of 178(blank) being then
upwards of twenty years of age, made & published her last will and testament
in writings & therein disposed of all her Estate in the manner therein
mentioned, but no part thereof to the petitioner & the said Thomas being
appointed Executor of the said will which has been duly proved in the court
of
contend that the petitioner is entitled to no part of the Estate of his
sister Millicent.
