Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

 

                                                                          

       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 Feb  1773 .  Elizabeth lived approximately one year on

 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 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

 Turn1104@aol.com

 

 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 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 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 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 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.