†† ††††Subject :

††††††††††††† Wm Dew VS Thomas Viverette



††††††† Date :

††††††††††††† Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:54:53 EST


††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† †††††††††††††††††



††† 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 Feb1773 . Elizabeth lived approximately one year on

the plantation after Abraham died.We know that Elizabeth and Abraham had4

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 Dewswhile I was in Raleigh and could find nothing that would indicate

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



Nash County Loose Estate Records - Archives in Raleigh, NC No Date


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 petitionerís 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 thesame 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 accountedfor 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 childís

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 Elizabeth had the whole family to maintain out of the Estate & the

children (among the rest, the petitioner) were very small and helpless, to

that if anything 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 petitionerís claim of a share of his Sister Millicentís 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 partthereof to the petitioner & the said Thomas being

appointed Executor of the said will which has been duly proved in the court

of Edgecombe County & he qualified as Executor thereof, the Defendants

contend that the petitioner is entitled to no part of the Estate of his

sister Millicent.