Andersons of Colonial N. Carolina

so I start this site in Virginia… go figure

notes on Surry Co, VA

with 3 comments

Surry_Comp PSD_CU copy

…   Click to enlarge map… you may have to click a couple times…

Hening’s Statutes

LAWS OF VIRGINIA, MARCH, 1642-3, ACT LXVI. p.278 [Lawn’s Creek boundaries]
WHEREAS it was enacted at an Assembly in Jan: 1639, that the inhabitants of Lanes Creeke should reduced into a parish, and the said parish to beginn from the mouth of Hogg Island creeke along the river to Lanes creeke, And from Lanes Creeke to the head of the vppermost branches of the said creeke, and from the head of the branches of Lanes Creeke to the head of the branches of Chippoaks Creeke westerly, and thence to the mouth of Chippoakes Creeke, and from thence to Hogg Island Creeke, and that it should be lawfull and free for the inhabitants of Hogg Island in respect of the remoteness of church of Ja: Cittie, to which parish they belong, to provide themselves of a minister at their owne charge without any allowance to the said minister from the parson of Ja: Citty, wherein also it was provided that they should pay as full and ample contribution to the building of a church at Ja: Citty as the rest of the parish of Ja: Citty should be rated, It is thought fitt by this Assembly that the said act be wholly repealed, And in stead and place thereof be it enacted in consideration of the disabilitie of the said inhabitants to maintain a minister of their owne, and to contribute to the minister of Ja: Citty, whence they receive no spiritual benefit, that the said Chippoaks be reduced into an absolute parish without any relation to the parish of James Citty, the bounds of the said parish to be southeast vpon the parish of Lanes Creek, And northwest vpon the Sunken Marish and northeast vpon James River.
Technically the parish ended at the head of Chippoaks Creeke as written… but practically, I think it continued to Blackwater River. Reference this Tithable list of 1681: “A list of tithables in Lawne’s Creek pish within the precincts of Lower Chipoakes & ye Blackwater… 1681 By Ar: Allen”.

Southwark parish established.
NOVEMBER, 1645, ACT X. p.347
VPON the petition of the inhabitants from the colledge to the Vpper Chipoaks, including the said Vpper Chipoakes, that there might be granted vnto them the privilege of a parish which they desire may bee called Southwark parish. It is accordingly assented unto and enacted, provided they pay and satisfie vnto the minister of James Citty all customary tithes and dues and all rates and taxes allready assessed and to be assessed for and toward the finishing and repaireing of the church at Ja: Citty.

LAWS OF VIRGINIA, NOVEMBER 1738. p.76
An Act, for dividing the Parishes of Southwark, and Lawn’s-Creek; and other purposes therein mentioned.
I. WHEREAS, by reason of the large extent of the two adjacent parishes of Southwark, and Lawn’s Creek, in the county of Surry, the ministers and inhabitants thereof labour under great difficulties and inconveniences: For the removal of which, for the future,
II. Be it enacted, by the Lieutenant Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the first day of January, in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty eight, the said parishes of Southwark, and Lawn’s-creek, shall be divided by the river Black water: And those parts of the said parishes, situate on the north side of the said river, united and erected into one distinct parish, to be called the parish of Southwark: And those parts thereof on the south side of the said river, united and erected into one other distinct parish, to be called the parish of Albemarle.

That from and after the first day of January, next after the end of this session of assembly, those parts of the said counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, which lie between, and are included with the bounds hereafter mentioned, and the lower bounds of the said county of Brunswick, as it now stands, (that is to say,) a straight line to be run from the mouth of a branch of Nottoway river, called Chetacrie, between colonel Harrisons quarter, and Matthew Parham’s in the said county of Surry, to Meherrin river, to the line dividing the said counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, and from thence down that river, to the line dividing this country, and North Carolina, be annexed and united to the said county of Brunswick, and for ever thereafter shall be taken and reputed as parcel thereof; and be divided an exempt from the said counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, respectively, and from all dependances, offices, and charges, for or in respect thereof, and also discharged from all duties whatsoever, relating to the same. Boundaries of Brunswick altered.

LAWS OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 1705. p. 481

CHAP. LVII.
An act for settling the dividing lines between the Counties of Prince George, Surry, Isle of Wight and Nansemond, on the South side Black Water Swamp. [Not in Edition 1733 or 1752.]
WHEREAS many inconveniencys attend the inhabitants of the severall countys of Prince George, Surry, Isle of Wight and Nansemond, by reason of the uncertainty of the bounds of the said countys on the south side the Black Water Swamp, for prevention whereof for the future, [From MS.]
Be it enacted by the governor, councill and burgesses of this present general assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That the surveyors of the said countys (where the same is not already done) at some convenient time before the twenty-fifth day of December, one thousand seven hundred and six, do survey and lay out the Blackwater swamp in their said countys, and by comparing their severall surveys together to reduce the same into one straight line, from which said line so reduced, a perpendicular shall be raised, and a line run parallel to that perpendicular from the head of the bounds of each of the said counties, formerly settled to the Blackwater Swamp, shall hereafter be the dividing line of each county backwards as farr as this government extends, and that the said lines or bounds be run out by the surveyors of the respective countys, at the charge of their said countys within three months after the said twenty-fifth day of December.
And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That if the said surveyors, or any of them shall refuse or neglect to lay out the bounds of their respective countys according to the direction of this act, then such surveyor or surveyors so refusing, shall be fined ten thousand pounds of tobacco, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint or information in any court of record within this colony and dominion, wherein no essoign, protection or wager of law shall be allowed, one half of which fine shall be to her Majesty, her heirs and successors for and towards the support of this government and the contingent charges thereof, the other half to the informer, and if the Courts of the said respective Countys shall refuse or omitt to levy the tobacco accruing due to such surveyor for his service and charge therein in their next County Levy, then upon application made to the next Assembly, after such refusall, the said tobacco shall be levyed upon such County for the user of the said surveyor

(The castletrash nitwits had considered the problem of settlement west of the Blackwater River in 1702 but naturally put it off until 1705 as noted above…) LAWS OF VIRGINIA, MAY 1702, p.217… An ORDINANCE of Assembly for settling the dividing lines between the counties of Isle of Wight, Charles-City, and Nansemond, on the south side the Black Water Swamp. … like I say, they got around to it in 1705: [See chap. 57, of October 1705, “An act for settling the dividing lines between the counties of Prince George, Surry, Isle of Wight and Nansemond, on the south side Black Water Swamp.” −− Note, That act passed, after Prince George county was formed from Charles City, which was at the session of August 1702, and accounts for the name of Prince George being substituted, in the act of 1705; for Charles City, which occurs, in this Ordinance.] …some things never change…
======
Signed by FRANCIS NICHOLSON, Esqr. Govr.
PETER BEVERLEY, Speaker.

LAWS OF VIRGINIA, APRIL 1691, p.81
And forasmuch as by a clause of the 8th act of assembly, made at James Citty, October the tenth, 1665, it is enacted that the bounds of the Indians on the south side James river, be from the heads of the Southern branches of the Black water to the Appomatuck Indians, and thence to the Manokin Town, for the better explaining and ascertaining the bounds betwixt the English and Indians on the south side of James River, Be it enacted by their majesties lieutenant governour, councell and burgesses of this present Generall Assembly and the authority thereof, and it is hereby enacted, That a line from the head of the cheife or principle branch of the black water, to the upper part of the old Appomattocks Indian Town feild, and thence to the upper end of the Manokin Town be judged, deemed held and taken, to be the said bounds, and that the right honourable the lieutenant governour, with the advice of the councell bee requested to appoint some surveyor or surveyors to lay out, ascertain and plainly marke the said lines, and that all pattents or other grants of any lands laying without the said bounds be, and hereby are declared void and null to all intents and purposes as if the same had never been granted. And be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That the right honourable the lieutenant governour with the advice of the councill be, and is hereby requested and impowered to appoint surveyors to lay out and marke a road from such convenient place above the inhabitants on the north side James River as he shall think fit, to some place above the inhabitants on Rappahanoc river, and likewise to appoint persons to cleer the same at least twenty five foot wide, for which service the said surveyor or surveyors and other persons imployed shall be allowed in the next publique levie. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid and it is hereby enacted, That no surveyor or surveyors doe within three yeares next after the laying out and cleering of the said road presume to lay out or survey any land or lands without the same for any person whatsoever, and also that no person which already hath taken up or pattented any land which may happen to be without the said road, do adventure to seat thereon untill the said three yeares after such laying out be expired. Alwaise provided, that the said time of restraint shall not be accounted, deemed or taken to be any part of the time limited for seating or planting of lands.

What the hell?… I think what they said was the bounday of the “frontier”, that is, “settlement” “be from the heads of the Southern branches of the Black water to the Appomatuck Indians” …so basically just south of present day Petersburg over to the Blackwater River was spoken for… It is my perception that prior to about 1700 the overall area west of the Blackwater River was verboten to settlement… wink wink. Of course Indian Traders had been “out there” for 50 years at least.

…as they determined in 1665…
And whereas by the former articles of agreement,[LAWS OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER, 1665, p.220] it was provided that no Indians which are seated on the southside of James river should come over the Black water or the southerne branches thereof, It is hereby enacted that the said (a) bounds from the head of Black water to the Apamatack Indian towne and thence cross the river to the Monikon towne be the bounds of the Indians on the southside of James river.

LAWS OF VIRGINIA, NOVEMBER 1753. p. 384
An Act for dividing the county of Surry, and adding part of the parish of Albemarle, to the parish of Southwark.
I. WHEREAS many inconveniencies attend the inhabitants of the county of Surry, by reason of the large extent thereof, and they have petitioned this General Assembly that the said county may be divided. Surry county divided.
II. BE it therefore enacted by the Lieutenant Governor, Council, and Burgesses, of this present General Assembly, and it is hereby enacted, by the authority of the same, That from and immediately after the first day of February next, the said county of Surry be divided into two counties, and that all that part of the said county, which lies on James river, and on the inner or lower side of the bounds herein after mentioned, that is to say, beginning at Seacock swamp, on the line dividing the said county of Surry, from the county of Southampton; thence a straight course to Black water, at the mouth of Coppohank, and up Black water to the line dividing the said county of Surry, from the county of Prince George, shall be one distinct county, and retain the name of Surry; and that all the other part of the said county of Surry, shall be one other distinct county, and called and known by the name of Sussex.

LAWS OF VIRGINIA, MAY 1732, p.356
An Act for adding part of the Counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, unto the County of Brunswick; and part of the Parishes of Lawn’s-Creek, Southward, and Warwicksqueak, in the said Counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, unto the Parish of St. Andrew, in the said County of Brunswick.
II. Be it enacted, by the Lieutenant Governor, Council and Burgesses, of this present General Assembly, and by the authority thereof, That from and after the first day of January, next after the end of this session of assembly, those parts of the said counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, which lie between, and are included with the bounds hereafter mentioned, and the lower bounds of the said county of Brunswick, as it now stands, (that is to say,) a straight line to be run from the mouth of a branch of Nottoway river, called Chetacrie, between colonel Harrisons quarter, and Matthew Parham’s in the said county of Surry, to Meherrin river, to the line dividing the said counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, and from thence down that river, to the line dividing this country, and North Carolina, be annexed and united to the said county of Brunswick, and for ever thereafter shall be taken and reputed as parcel thereof; and be divided an exempt from the said counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, respectively, and from all dependances, offices, and charges, for or in respect thereof, and also discharged from all duties whatsoever, relating to the same.

III. And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That those parts of the said counties of Surry, and Isle of Wight, so as aforesaid annexed and united to the said county of Brunswick, be also from and after the said first day of January, annexed and united to the parish of Saint Andrew, in the said county of Brunswick, and be divided and exempt from the parishes of Lawn’s-Creek, and Southwark, in the said county of Surry, and the parish of Warwicksqueak, in the said county of Isle of Wight, respectively, to which the same do at present belong; and all dependances, offices, charges, and contributions, for and in respect thereof, and all parochial duties whatsoever, relating to the same; any law or usage to the contrary of any of the premises, in any wise, notwithstanding.

——————————–

In my quest to interpret colonial deeds… I often get confused… where exactly is the “upper pish or parish of Isle of Wight”?

Example:  William Chambers, 1691, 1150 acres “situate on the main Blackwater Swamp in the upper pish of Isle of Wight”.

Alternately, where was the “upper parish” of Surry County?  Southwark or Lawne’s Creek? Considering the Blackwater River, which was upper and which was lower?   It just grates on my nerves to read “on the south side of Blackwater river”… because, if you notice, there is very rarely a “south” to the Blackwater… there are miles and miles of “WEST” or “EAST” but not so much south.

So I go to Henings Statutes… and don’t REALLY get any answers…

http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol04-22.htm

Hening’s Statutes,  p. 444/5

LAWS OF VIRGINIA, AUGUST 1734

An Act for dividing the parish of Henrico; and for uniting and dividing the parishes of Newport, and Warwicksqueak, in the County of Isle of Wight; and for other purposes therein mentioned….

III. And whereas the parishes of Newport, and Warwicksqueak, are upwards of sixty miles in length; and there are, in each of them, one church, and two chapels, which are very inconvenient, both to the ministers and people: Be it further enacted, That those parts of the parishes of Newport and Warwicksqueak, which lie on the north side of Blackwater, be hereafter united, and made one distinct parish, and be called by the name of Newport parish; and that those parts of the said parishes, which lie on the south side of Blackwater, be also united, and made one other distinct parish, to be called by the name of Nottoway parish. And, forasmuch as the vestrymen who were of the vestry of the said parishes of Newport, and Warwicksqueak, and now reside in the new parish of Newport, will exceed the number twelve, and the vestrymen of the two parishes, on the south side of Blackwater, who will be now taken into the new parish of Nottoway, will be under that number, Be it further enacted, That all the vestrymen of the said parishes of Newport, and Warwicksqueak, who, after the passing of this act, shall be living, and residing on the north side of Blackwater, shall continue vestrymen of the parish of Newport; but no new election shall be made, in the room of any of them that shall die, ’til they fall under the number of twelve: And that the freeholders and house-keepers of the new parish of Nottoway, shall have power to meet at some convenient time and place, to be appointed, and publickly advertised, by the sheriff of the county of Isle of Wight, and elect so many other persons as will make up the number of the former vestrymen, twelve: And such persons, so to be chosen, with those who were before vestrymen of the said two parishes, shall be a vestry for the said new parish of Nottoway. And whereas the vestry of the parish of Newport, have levied, npon the inhabitants of that parish, ten thousand pounds of tobacco, for building a new chapel in that part of the parish which will now fall into the parish of Nottoway, Be it further enacted, That the churchwardens of the parish of Newport shall pay to the churchwardens of the parish of Nottoway, the said ten thousand pounds of tobacco, or so much thereof as is not already laid out in the said building, for completing and finishing the same. And forasmuch as there will be now two glebes in the new parish of Newport, Be it further enacted, That the glebe which did heretofore belong to the said parish of Warwicksqueak, with the appurtenances, be and is hereby vested in the vestry of the new parish of Nottoway, when the same shall be elected; and in the vestry of that parish, for the time being, in trust, that they shall sell, and by deeds of bargain and sale, convey for the best price that can be got, the said glebe, with the appurtenances, by such description as they shall think fit, to any person or persons who shall purchase the same, to hold to such purchaser or purchasers, in fee simple: And when the same is so sold and conveied in trust, for purchasing, with the money arising by such sale, a new glebe, for the parish of Nottoway, or in building upon, or improving, the new glebe: And they are further impowered and made capable, to take, receive, and hold, any land, to be purchased, or given, for a glebe, for the use of the parson of the said parish of Nottoway, for the time being, forever.

IV. And whereas, in settling the bounds between the counties of Nansemond, and Isle Wight, a small tract of land, which before, was supposed to be part of the county of Nansemond, was taken into Isle Wight, and became part of the parish of Newport, yet the people inhabiting the said tract of land, have refused to pay the parish rates, or levies, in that parish, or any other, pretending an ancient exemption, which appears to be without grounds: For removing the said pretence, Be it further enacted and declared, That the inhabitants of the said tract of land, shall pay and perform all parish rates, levies, and duties, in the said new parish of Newport; and in default thereof, shall be liable to the like distresses as other parishioners, are by the laws of this colony.

So! now that you and I are now both EXPERTS on colonial deeds… pishes… parishes and what not… perhaps you can explain this…

(p. 681) 14 May 1737 . . . Thomas Morland of Isle of Wight County to Charles Binns of Surry County . . . 150 acres on Green Swamp in Lawnes Creek Parish (being land formerly granted to Thomas Barrow who sold it to Henry Norton who sold 100 acres to THOMAS PITMAN and 50 acres to WILLIAM PITMAN who sold it to THOMAS PITMAN who then sold it to the said Thomas Morland). Wit: John Holt, Thomas Davidson and Thomas Binns (Surry Co VA).

Uh… Green Swamp is 4 (FOUR) miles west of the official boundary of Lawnes Creek…  and this was written in 1737.  I mean, forsooth!,  wasn’t it common knowledge where the boundary was since, uh, 1642…   LAWS OF VIRGINIA, MARCH, 1642-3, ACT LXVI. p.278 [Lawn’s Creek boundaries].  If you are trying to figure out where Thomas Pitman’s land was, this stuff is important (smiling).

Unfortunately I don’t think there are any hard and fast “rules of the road” to follow when trying to interpret the colonial deeds… even the old boys themselves often got confused… and GOSH! couldn’t even read what some earlier scribe scribbled!

Advertisements

Written by anderson1951

November 29, 2012 at 2:24 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. In the 1642 act, they begin with the western boundary (lower) Chippoaks. Then in the last
    sentence they use the western boundary Sunken Marsh – which according to your
    map, is just east of Prince George county (or upper Chippoaks?).

    I think we have to use the last boundary description.
    I’ve had a similar problem: Thomas Lane got 400a on
    Sunken Marsh in 1682, (I think) described in Lawne’s creek. He was definitely
    taxed in Lawne’s creek all the way up in 1700s. When he sold some of the land
    in 1715, it was still in Lawne’s creek. But when his grandson John Lane sold
    the inherited land in 1743, it was “about 100 acres in Southwark Parish in S,
    and bounded by Sunken Marsh Swamp”.

    Thanks to your questioning/research here and my similar problem, thats the
    conclusion that I come to: Lawnes Creek might have actually stretched from
    Hog Island almost to the Prince George border.

    Jeff Lane

    July 2, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    • Smiling… I think of Lawnes Creek as a balloon that gets blown up with air but it seems to leak back out to its original boundaries… Southwark just seems to get renamed whenever a Tithe lister got lazy/bored or both. Just reading my attempt to figure it out is confusing. Well, exasperating may be a better term.
      Not to get too political, cranky Conservative that I am, it seems then, as now, that the more pages Government Folks add to their laws the more confusing it gets. LOL.

      anderson1951

      July 3, 2013 at 3:20 am

      • Well I read it again, and it seems that Lawne’s Creek was setup initially
        as you have it on your map – the green area. But then the last sentence
        seems to name the western area as Chippoake’s. It was as if they
        attempted to create an additional Parish called Chippoake’s which extended
        westward from Lawne’s Creek Parish to Sunken Marsh. However,
        since it never materialized, it was always referred to as Lawne’s Creek.

        Jeff Lane

        July 3, 2013 at 9:08 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: