Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 8667, Geroge Frederick Dener, S.C.
Page 1

(3-1776)

SERVICE | NUMBER
S.C. | Dener, George Frederick | W. 8667
Chistiana | B.L.Wt. 24,168-160-55

CONTENTS
Page 2

[Three columns]
[Left column part of right column]

Thompson
1833
ry affiv
laration
of Pension
___
See Report
Sec Int. July 27/50

[illegible]

[Middle column]

5,989
South Carolina 

Christiana Dener
widow of George F.
SC  Dener
who served in the Revolutionary 
war, as a Priv. & Lieut.

Inscribed on the Roll at the rate 
of 236 Dollar 65 
Cents per annum, to commence 
on the 4th day of March, 1848.

Certificate of Pension issued 
the 14th day of Sept. 1852
and sent to
M. Thompson 
present
[Circular seal of THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE 
UNITED STATES]

Recorded on Roll of Pensioners under act 
February 2, 1848, Page 309 Vol. 2

[Right column and left column seem to be one document which has been torn apart. ]

Let to M.
2 Dec
Secreta
the dec
Court
___
Copies sent to Sec. Interior 
for Court of Claims 
March 19/56
Reqd. [illegible] 161478

[Circular seal of THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE 
UNITED STATES]
Page 3

DENER, GEORGE F.
(S.C.) W-8667
Page 4

[Two panels]
[Left panel]

161-478-Act May 3 55
June 7 55
___
Christian Dener 89 years wid
ow of George F Dener pri [struck out: &
Lieutenant]
___
S.C. Troops
Revolutionary 
Pensioner 
[illegible]
___
[Note written across front of image]
No 24168 if Aprl 22/56
___
Ad. 160 Ac. Aol. 16" 1856, 
S.C. Feby 48 5989
Boynton
___
W. B. Fickling Esqr
Charleston, S. Carolina 

[Right panel]

Vol. D. 58.
Page 5

State of South Carolina } On this 14th day of August 
District of Charleston } 1838, personally appeared 
before the undersigned Mrs Christianna Dener 
aged 72 years, and a resident of the City of Charleston 
who being duly sworn according to law doth 
on her oath make the following declaration in 
order to be entitled to the provision made by the 
act of Congress passed July 7" 1838, entitled "an act 
granting half pay and pensions to certain widows" 
That, she was married to George Frederick Dener 
who was during the war of the Revolution first 
enrolled (as she has frequently heard her sd husb
and relate, and as Deponent believes) in a corps 
called the light infantry of Charleston commanded 
by Captain Priolean in the year 1776, and served 
in same up to the surrender of Charleston 
in May 1780. Deponent saith, that during 
this period, he served for more than 12 months 
under arms with the rank of Lieutenant in 
said corps, and in actual service. Deponent saith 
that, while he was so a Lieut in said company he 
served at the Battles of Beaufort, Stono, and 
Savannah in 1779 and at the siege of Char
leston in May 1780, and that, at the surrender 
of said City he was while so a Lieutenant and 
under arms taken prisoner and returned 
so a prisoner on parol for more than 12 
months.  Deponent saith, that, after being 
so a prisoner in sd. City to the British 12 months 
he escaped to the camp of Marion some miles 
from the City, and after being there some time 
it was proposed and so carried into effect, to 
reorganize the German Fusilier company 
and said G F Dener was commissioned a
Lieutenant in same, and Deponent 
saith that, he held the said rank of Lieutenant
Page 6

in said corps of "German Fusiliers," (Daniel Strobel 
being then Captain) from the 1st September 1782, 
the period of the reorganization of the corps aforesaid, 
until September 1783, and for many years 
afterwards, and in this way Deponent saith 
her husband the aforesaid George Frederick Dener 
served under arms more than two years 
during the war of the Revolution as aforesaid.

Deponent further saith that she 
was married to the said George Frederick Dener 
on the 15 day of March seventeen hundred 
and eighty seven the same being regularly 
registered in his bible, and that her husban
d the aforesaid G F Dener died on the 27th 
July 1795.  That she was not married to him 
prior to his leaving the service, but the marr
iage took place previous to the 1 January 
1794 viz at the time above stated, 
and that she is now a widow in limited 
circumstances having never since interm
arried.
Sworn to and subscribed before me the | Christiana Dener
day and year above written, and I also 
certify the credibility of the affiant. The word 
"Daniel" in the first line duly authenticated.
Chas. Lee Distr. Judge 
[illegible]
Page 7

161-478

Exparte

Christiana Dener  | [Written vertically right margin]
widow of George F. Fener | Application for 
Lieutenant in "The German | Land Warrant.
Fusiliers Company" during 
the Revolutionary War.
Page 8

State of South Carolina |
Charleston District |

On this twenty ninth 
day of May Anno Domini eighteen hundred 
and fifty five personally appeared before me 
a Magistrate within and for the District 
and State aforesaid Christiana Dener 
aged eighty nine years a resident of Charleston 
in the State aforesaid who being duly sworn 
according to law declares that she is the widow 
of George F. Dener deceased who was a private 
and Lieutenant in the German Fusiliers 
Company during the war of the Revolution, that 
she was married to the said George F. Dener 
in Charleston by the Reverend Nicholas Martin 
some time about the year 1786, that her 
name before her said marriage was 
Christiana Williman, that her said husband 
died somewhere in the year 1799, and that 
she is now a widow----

She further states that she has 
been receiving a pension from the United 
States government as the widow of the 
said Georg F Dener since the 14th September 
AD 1852 and for further proofs refers to 
her papers now on file in the Pension Office 
and recorded on the Roll of Pensioners 
under the Act of Congress of February 2nd 
1848, Volume 2nd page 309---

She makes this Declaration for 
the purpose of obtaining the Bounty Land 
to which she may be entitled under the "Act 
approved March 3rd 1855"
Christiana Dener
Page 9

We John W Doniphan and 
Henry C Baker residents of Charleston 
in the State of South Carolina upon our oaths 
declare that the foregoing declaration was 
signed and acknowledged by Mrs 
Christiana Dener in our presence; and 
that we believe from the appearance and 
statements of the applicant, that she 
is the identical person she represents 
herself to be
John W Doniphan
Henry C. Baker

The foregoing declaration and affidavit 
were sworn to and subscribed [struck out: in my]
before me on the day and year above written 
and I certify that I know the affiants 
to be credible persons, that the claimant 
is the person she represents herself to be 
and that I have no interest in this claim
Cha's. H. Axson [Blurred seal]
Magistrate
Page 10

State of South Carolina |
Charleston District - |

I, Daniel Horlbeck Clerk 
of the Court of Common Pleas and General 
Sessions in and for the district and State 
aforesaid do hereby certify that Charles 
H. Axson Esquire before whom the foregoing 
declaration and affidavit were taken 
was at the date thereof a Magistrate for the 
District and State aforesaid who had been 
duly appointed and qualified and had 
signed the Roll kept according to law 
in my office---
In testimony whereof I have hereunto 
set my hand and seal of office at Charleston 
on the thirtieth day of May in the 
[Blurred seal of office] year of our Lord one thousand eight 
hundred and fifty and in 
the seventy ninth year of the
sovereignty and independence of the 
Unites States of America.
Daniel Horlbeck 
CCP
Page 11

Affidavits 

Look at these
carefully
Page 12

State of South Carolina }
City of Charleston }

Personally appeared Edmund Cranston 
who being sworn says that he is the Grandson of 
Mrs Christiana Dener, who is an applicant for a Pension 
as the widow of Lieutenant George F Dener.  This 
Deponent is thirty seven years old, that he was 
born in his Grandmothers house situated in Mazzok 
that which was left to her by her husband Mr George 
F Dener, that he has been living with her all his 
life and still continues to do so.  That from his 
earliest recollections he distinctly remembers 
an old oil painting that has hung up in the house 
and still remains there, which he has always 
understood to be the portrait of his Grandfather 
George F Dener; said portrait is an old oil painting, 
about three fee square, set in a gilt frame 
and represents a person in Military Uniform 
with an eupaulette [epaulette] on the left shoulder, with 
a scarlet sash, and a gorget on the breast, the 
hilt of the sword apparent, the coat of blue 
color with red facing, being as the Deponent 
is informed the uniform of the German 
Fusilier Company of that day.
Sworn to before me this 22nd day of 
October AD 1851.
Edward S Courtenay | Edmund Cranston
Notary Public

Charleston Octr 23rd 1851

I have know Mr Edmund Cranston whose name appears above for many 
years.  He is a gentleman of character & high respectability and one in whose 
statement I would place the most implicit confidence.
Edmund S Courtenay
Page 13

Charleston So. Ca. August 27th 1838.

Lutheran Church German Protestants 

The following extracts are furnished from the 
records of this Church, viz,

"Married on the 15th of 
March 1787, by the Revd. Mr. J. N. Martin, George 
F. Dener to Christina Speidel."

"George Dener was interred in the cemetery of 
the Lutheran Church on the 27th July 1795." the 
Revd. John C. Faber was then the Pastor of the Church.  

I, certify the above to be correct.
Sworn to before me this }
14 day of September 1838 }
and I also certify the credibility } Jacob F. Minting, President.
of the affiant }
P Cantwell Not Publ[illegible] }
for said Dist So Ca }
Page 14

Revy WIDOW, &c.

File No. 8667 [illegible initials]
Christiana Dener
Wid
George F. Dener 
Lieut Rev. War

Act: Febry 2d. 1848.

Index:--Vol. A, Page 175

[ Arrangement of 1870. ]
Page 15

9,275
South Carolina 

Christiana Dener 
widow of George F. 
who was a priv. & Lieut.
in the Revolution

Inscribed on the Roll at the rate 
of 236 Dollars 65 
Cents per annum, to commence 
on the 4th day of March, 1843.

Certificate of Pension issued 
the 14th day of Sept. '52
and sent to 
M. Thompson 
Prest.

[ Acts of March 3, 1843, & June 
17, 1844. ]

Recorded in Book A
Vol. 2 Page 165
Page 16

11,386
South Carolina

Christiana Dener
widow of George F. 
who died on the -- 1795
of in the State of 
who was a priv & Lt. of the commanded 
by Captain of the commanded 
by in the 
line for Revolution

Inscribed on the Roll of Charleston 
at the rate of 236 Dollars 65 Cents 
per annum, to commence on the 4th day of 
March, 1836.

Certificate of Pension issued the 14 day of 
Sept. 52 and sent to 
M Thompson
Prest

Arrears to the 4th of 
Semi annual allowance ending ===
===

{ Revolutionary Claim, }
{ Act July 7, 1838. }

[illegible]rded by R. McRae Clerk 
D Vol. 1 Page 305
Page 17

No 3070
Christiana Dener
___
Let to Col. C. I Nourse
June 4 '47
Let to Nathan Drake 
July 29 '47
Let to Col C I Nourse Sept
10th 1847
Let to Geo Mackay
Sept 13 48
Let Hon D. Wallace 13" Sept 1850
N. Thompson 27 Nov 1850
Act 5 38

Let N. Thompson Nov 25/51
To same June 7 52
Let to Hon Witaker June 18/52
Let N. Thompson Sept 8/52 ✓
Page 18

3070

Christiana Dener 
widow of Geo Fredk
So Ca
Act 7 July 1838 
Let to P Cantwell
10 [remainder illegible]
Page 19

[Circular postmark]
CHARLESTON 
JUN
4
S.C.  Free

L. P. Waldo Esq
Commissioner of Pens
Washington
D.C.
Page 20

[illebile[ Act 2d. Feb 48 S.C.
Boynton

24,168
[illegible] any
Page 21

Charleston S. C. Agency
___
Christiana Dener, widow 
of Geo Frederick, who was 
a private & Lieut S. Caro
lina German Fusiliers.
___
Ad 3 months private $10.00
" 17 mos Lieut. 226.65
$236.65

Acts July 7, 1838, &c, &c
___

Cer March 4, 1836
___
M. Thompson, 
Present
Page 22

State of South Carolina } Office Court Com Pleas 
District of Charleston } Charleston

I Charles C. Strohecker Clerk of the Court 
of Common Pleas, for Charleston Dist So Ca, hereby 
certify that Patrick Cantwell is a magistrate, and that 
the signatures to the annexed papers purporting to be his 
are genuine.  I further certify that the witnesses to this 
case namely Messrs. John Cart, John Strobel Joseph 
Righton, Jacob F Mintzing, Wm Purse & Mesdames Gruber & Godfry
are respectable and entitled to credit.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my 
name and affixed my seal of office this 2 day of 
November 1838 [Blurred seal of office] Charles C Strohecker
Clerk of the Court of Common 
Pleas for Charleston Dst So Ca
Page 23

State of South Carolina } On this 30th day of October 
District of Charleston } 1838 personally appeared before 
the undersigned Mr Wm Purse aged 76 years a resident of 
Charleston & a Revolutionary pensioner, who being duly sworn 
deposeth, that, he was acquainted with Geo. F. Dener during 
the War of the Revolution, that, he remembers him as wearing 
the uniform of "the German Fusiliers," as a Lieutenant, and has 
every reason to believe he served in this company during the 
War, at least 12 months, and with the rank of Lieutenant. 
Deponent saith he has always heard Mrs. Dener said G. F Dener's
widow (now an applicant for a pension) spoken of as a 
respectable married lady of excellent character.
Sworn to and subscribed before me } Wm Purse
the day and year above written and I }
also certify the respectability of the affiant }
P Cantwell Not Pub & Qtr in }
for sd Dist }
Page 24

State of South Carolina } On this 14th day of August 
District of Charleston } 1838, personally appeared 
before the undersigned, Captain John Strobel 
aged 64 years and a resident of the City of Charleston, 
who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth 
that, he was well acquainted with the late George 
Frederick Dener, formerly of the City of Charleston 
deceased, and is well acquainted with his widow 
who now applies for a pension, namely Mrs Chris
tianna Dener of said Charleston. Deponent, saith, 
that, he has reason to believe, and has no doubts 
of the fact (being acquainted with the said Dener 
and his family from his Deponents infancy) 
that, the said George Frederick Dener at the comm
encement of the Revolution joined a corps called 
the Charleston Light Infantry, and commanded 
by Captain Priolean, and served in same for 
two years during the War of the Revolution, 
and saith he believes and has no doubts, that, 
he held the rank of a Lieutenant in this corp
s for 12 months previous to the surrender 
of Charleston in May 1780, and that, it was 
while he was so an officer he served at Port 
Royal, Stono, Savannah, and at the siege 
of Charleston. Deponent saith he heard, & 
always believed it, that, said Dener became 
a prisoner to the British at the fall of Char
leston and remained so a prisoner (being 
taken while under arms) for 12 months, 
he then as this Deponent always heard 
and believes made his way to Marions 
camp, and about the month of Septem
ber 1782, the "German Fusiliers" Company
Page 25

was there reorganized, and Deponents 
father Daniel Strobel was commissioned 
Captain, and said G. F. Dener then and 
there made Lieutenant, in same. Depo
nent saith, said Dener held this rank of 
Lieutenant from said month of September 
1782 until the month of September 1783 & 
for many years thereafter Deponent  
saith that, he joined said corps in 1791, and 
held a commission in same either as a 
Lieutenant or Captain for nearly 14 years, 
and is therefore well acquainted with the 
history of the Company. Deponent further 
saith he was present at the marriage of sd 
G.F. Dener to said Christianna Dener, in 
the year 1787, and that, said G.F. Dener 
died in the year 179[struck out: 7]5, and that, said 
Christianna, has remained a widow ever 
since, always maintaining a respectable 
character.
Sworn to and subscribed before me }
the day and year above written & I also } John Strobel
certify the credibility of the affiant }
(altering 1797 to 1795, first, on the 17 line }
P Cantwell Not Pub & Qtr for }
Charleston Dist So Carolina }
Page 26

State of South Carolina } On this 27 day of October 
District of Charleston } 1838 personally appeared 
before the undersigned Mrs Sarah Godfrey aged 
71 years a resident of Charleston, who being duly 
sworn according to law, deposeth, that she 
remembers well the late George Fredk Dener 
during the War of the Revolution, as being in 
the "German Fusilier" Company as an officer 
and she has reason to believe a Lieutenant & 
that, he served in same previous to the fall 
of Charleston one year, and that, at the surrend
er of same she has reason to believe he 
was among those who were taken prisoners 
bearing arms and that, he remained so 
a prisoner 12 months to the enemy 
Deponent saith she has every reason to 
believe that, the present Mrs Christiana 
Dener is his widow, and that, she was married 
to the said Geo. Frederick Dener in the year 
1787, and that, said George died in the year 179[struck out: 7]5 
and that, said Christiana is a lady of respectable 
character whose statements are entitled to credit.
Sworn to and subscribed before me }
the day and year above written & I }
also certify the credibility of the affiant } Sarah Godfrey
"1797," being first altered to "1795," 20 lines }
P Cantwell Not Pub & Qtr for 
Charleston Dist So Ca
Page 27

State of South Carolina } On this 1st day of 
District of Charleston } [struck out: October] November 1838 personally 
appeared before the undersigned Mrs Barbara 
Gruber aged 78 years a resident of Charleston 
who being duly sworn deposeth, that she 
was acquainted with George Frederick Dener 
late of Charleston decd. That she knew him 
during the War of the Revolution as an officer 
and as she believes a Lieutenant in "The German 
Fusilier Company" That Deponent lived in 
Charleston during said period both before and 
after the siege and that, her belief is that she 
knew him to be so an officer for more than 
one year and it may be two, but she cann
ot speak positively as to the period of his 
service, but remembers him well during the 
War. Deponent saith, she has always heard 
of his widow the present Mrs. Christianna 
Dener, as being a respectable married lady 
whose statements are entitled to credit, and 
Dept saith she has reason to believe said Geo
Frederick Dener was married to sd. Christianna 
Dener in the year 1787, and that the said George 
Frederick died in the year 1795.
Sworn to and subscribed before me } M B Gruber
the day & year above written & I also certify }
the credibility of the affiant }
P. Cantwell Not Pub & Qtr
for sd Dist So Ca
Page 28

Mrs Dener 
Mrs Gruber
Page 29

Mr Dener
Mr Righton
Page 30

State of South Carolina } On this 1st day of November 
District of Charleston } 1838 personally appeared 
before the undersigned, Mr Joseph Righton aged 76 
and a resident of Charleston & who being duly sworn 
according to law deposeth, that, he remembers 
to having seen George Frederick Dener during 
the War of the Revolution under arms serving 
in the "German Fusiliers," and Deponent saith 
he has reason to believe he served during said 
War 12 months, previous to the fall of Charleston 
in May 1780, and that, when the City surrend
ered Deponent has reason to believe he 
was made a prisoner while under arms 
and detained by the enemy 12 months. 
Deponent remembers well that, he wore  
the uniform of an officer in said "German 
Fusilier Company," but Deponent cannot 
now bring to his recollection, whether he was 
so an officer before the surrender of the City, 
as he has no doubt he was shortly after that 
event. Deponent saith he has every reason 
to believe said G.F Dener was married to 
said Christianna Dener in the year 1787, and 
that, said G.F. Dener died in the year 1795, and that 
said Christianna is his widow, and that her  
statements are entitled to credit.
Sworn to & subscribed before me }
the day & year above written & I also } Jos. Righton
certify the credibility of the affiant }
P Cantwell }
Not Pub & Qtr for sd Dist So Ca }
Page 31

Mrs Dener
Mr Cart

3070 
Christiana Dener 
widow of 
George Frederick Dener 
Act 7 July 1838 
S.C.
Page 32

State of South Carolina } On this 13th day of September 
District of Charleston } 1838 personally appeared 
before the undersigned Mr John Cart aged 76 years 
a resident of Charleston and a Revolutionary pensioner 
who being duly sworn deposeth, that he was person
ally acquainted with George Frederick Dener 
during the War of the Revolution, and subsequent
ly for the families of said Dener, and of Deponent 
were on terms of intimacy. Deponent saith 
that said G.F. Dener was a commissioned 
officer and as he believes a Lieutenant during 
said War, and served with this rank for two 
years and more, to wit from the year 1779 
to the end of the War in April 1783. Deponent 
saith he said Dener served in the German 
Fusiliers during this period, and that if he 
served in another company previously he 
does not now recollect it. Deponent saith 
that, he was so a Lieutenant at the surrender 
of Charleston, and was made a prisoner 
while under arms, and continued so a 
prisoner on parol for 12 months. Dept.  
saith that, after the evacuation of the City in 
December 1782 by the British said corps was 
revived and said Dener was commissioned 
in it, and remained an officer of it to the time 
of his death, in 1795. Deponent saith, he was 
a prisoner to the British also upon the surrender 
of Charleston in May 1780, and speaks of Deners 
service and imprisonment from his personal 
knowledge. Deponent saith he has reason to 
believe said G.F. Dener married Christianna  
Dener in 1787, that, she is now his widow, and that 
her statements are entitled to full credit.
Sworn to and subscribed before me }
the day and year above written & I } John Cart
also certify the credibility of the affiant }
P Cantwell Not Pub & Qtr for sd. Dist So Ca }
Page 33

[State of South Carolina Seal]

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

BY HIS EXCELLENCY, 

-- J. H. Means --
GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE STATE AFORESAID.

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME.

Know Ye, That J J. Sentell Esqr whose signature appears 
to the annexed affidavit was at the time of signing the same 
and is now a Magistrate for Edgefield District in the State 
of South Carolina. And that Edward S. Courtenay Esqr
 whose signature appears to the Oath of Edward Cranston also 
annexed, was at the time of signing the same and is now, a 
Notary Public for the City & District of Charleston in the State aforesaid.

THEREFORE, all due faith, credit, and authority is and ought to be had and 
given to his proceedings and certificates as such.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused 
to be affixed the seal of the State, in the City of Charleston, State aforesaid 
the Twenty fourth day of October -- in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Fifty one 
and in the Seventy Sixth year of the Independence of the 
United States of America.

[Blurred State seal] J H Means
By the Governor.

Benjamin Perry 
Secretary of State.
Page 34

State of South Carolina }
--Edgefield District-- }

Personally appeared John Strobel 
who being duly sworn, says that he is a native of Charleston 
in the State aforesaid, that he is now seventy six years of age, 
that he resided in Charleston from the time of his birth until 
the year 1848 when he removed into Edgefield District where 
he now resides; that he knew George F Dener in his life 
time who was first Lieutenant of the German Fusilier 
Company from the year 1779 to 1785 in accordance with 
its Roll Book, when Daniel Strobel the Father of this 
Deponent was Captain of said Company to wit: from 
the year 1779 to 1797. This Deponent also positively 
knows that upon the evacuation of Charleston in December 
1782 the German Fusilier Company marched into Charl
eston from Georgetown under the command of his Father 
at which time George F Dener was first Lieutenant. 
This Deponent further says that he was personally and in
timately acquainted with the said George F Dener up to the 
time of his death which took place in the summer of 1795 
and that he was and is personally acquainted with his widow 
Mrs Christiana Dener who now resides in the family residence 
in Mazzok Street City of Charleston where her husband died; 
and where there is a portrait of the said George F Dener 
in the costume of said Company at the time when he 
was Lieutenant. This Deponent further says that he 
became a member of the said Company on the 7th June 
1794 and that he served as Ensign, Lieutenant and 
Captain up to the year 1814 and that his Father and 
Lieut Dener were among the first original founders of 
the German Fusilier Society a charitable institution formed 
out of said Company in 1792 which now exists, and also that 
the said Lieutenant Dener was a member of another society
Page 35

called the German Friendly Society which is also now in ex
istance [istence], and from which the said Mrs Christiana Dener in 
consequence of her husband having been a member at the time 
of his death receives a small annuity.
Sworn to before me this twenty second day of 
October A D 1851.
J. J. Sentell | John Strobel
M.E.D.

Mayor's Office 
Charleston South Carolina 
Octr. 24, 1851

This will certify that I am acquainted (& have 
been for many years past) with the above John 
Strobel; that he is a gentleman of character 
& respectability & that every credit is to be gi
ven to his deposition as above.
Witness my hand & the seal of the 
City affixed the day & year above 
written.
Jos Schnierle 
Mayor
[Blurred Seal of City] By the Mayor.
John R. Rodgers.
Clerk of Council.
Page 36

State of South Carolina }
--City of Charleston-- }

I hereby certify that I have been a 
member of the German Fusilier Company and Society 
for the last twenty six years, having joined the same 
when I was eighteen years of age, and have been Treasurer 
and Keeper of the Archives of said Company and Society 
from the year 1832 and have been ever since. I received 
the said Archives from my predecessor the late Col 
Jacob Sass a member who had been Custodian of 
the said Archives of said Company from the Revolution. 
This Deponent finds by one of the original books of 
minutes of said Company in his possession as Treasurer 
extending from 1775 to 1777 the name of George F. Dener 
who appears there to be doing duty as a Private on Friday 
the 1st January 1779 at the train & magazine guard 
in Charleston District.  This Deponent is a Grandson 
of one of the original members who formed the Company 
in 1775. Deponent has often heard his father (who 
was Captain of said Company for nine years) say that one 
of the original books of minutes extending from 1779 to 
the evacuation of Charleston by the British on the 14th of 
December 1782 was lost in consequence of the confusion 
and the unsettled state of the times. This Deponent has no 
doubt of the fact from tradition that George F Dener 
was first Lieutenant of the German Fusilier Company 
from 1779 to 1785. This Deponent is well acquainted with 
Mr John Strobel whose affidavit accompanies who is 
an aged citizen and who is a gentleman of known 
veracity and truth, and who was a comrade in 
arms of this Deponents Grandfather, and that he 
is the only one living that can be refered [referred] to in 
this matter for positive proof, as no other is known 
to be living who is the son of the original members
Page 37

who can be found. This Deponent is also acquainted 
with Mrs Christiana Dener who is a lady of respecta
bility now aged about 85 years, and has often heard of 
her husband from the old German settlers of this country 
who are now dead, and has no doubt whatever as 
to her right of Pension by being the widow of a 
Revolutionary officer.
Given under my hand and seal
this twentieth day of October A D 1851
[Blurred seal] Dan Horlbeck
Treasurer & Keeper 
of the Archives of the 
German Fus. Society 
& Co.

Many years since I gave a certificate by which 
Col Jacob Sass a comrade in arms of George F 
Dener obtained a Pension from the General Government. 
From my best recollection, it is my opinion that 
I have given certificates for others whose names 
I do not now recollect.
Charleston October 29th 1851.
Danl Horlbeck

I hereby certify that Daniel Horlbeck Esquire 
whose name appears to the above certificate 
is a gentleman of high character and respectabi
lity in the community, and that every credit is 
to be given to his statements.
Given under my hand at the City of 
Charleston State of South Carolina this twen
tieth day of October AD. 1851.
R B Gileburt 
Judge of the United States 
for the District of South Carolina
Page 38

Charleston April 8th 1847

To the Commissioner of Pensions 

Sir

I Christiana 
Dener widow of George Frederic Dener decesd 
have employed Col. George Lette of Raleigh 
No. Ca. to prosecute my pension claim which 
you will please report to him and oblige 
Test
G.R. Ratchford | Christiana Dener
H D Cranston

I hereby transfer to Nathan Leake Esqr
all authority vested in me by the above 
writing, and respectfully submit 
the same to the consideration of 
Col J. L. Edwards.  (Signed)
Geo. Little
Page 39

Know All Men By These Presents That I 
Christiana Dener of the City of Charleston in the 
State of South Carolina, hereby constitute and 
appoint George Little of Raleigh North Carolina 
my true and lawful Agent and Attorney, to pro
secute my Claim for any amount of Revolutionary 
Pension, or increase of Pension that may be due; 
and I hereby authorize my said Agent to examine 
all the papers and documents in relation to said 
Claim, on file in the Department at Washington 
City, or elsewhere; to file additional evidence or 
arguments; and to receive the Certificate which 
may be issued for said Claim, which Certificate 
I wish made payable to Edmund Cranston a 
resident of the City of Charleston, South Carolina 
to appoint one or more substitutes under him for 
the purposes herein expressed; and to do all things 
that I might or could do were I personally present. 
Hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said Attorney 
and Agent shall lawfully do in the premises
Witness by hand and seal this twelvth [twelfth] day 
of July Anno Domini 1851.
Signed and sealed in the presence of } Christiana Dener
John Michel [L.S. encircled]
Notary Public
Page 40

State of South Carolina }
--City of Charleston-- } SS.

On this Fourteenth day of July Anno 
Domini 1851, before me, the subscriber, a Justice 
of the Peace in and for the City aforesaid, personally 
appeared Christiana Dener, and acknowledged 
the foregoing Power of Attorney to be her act and 
deed, for the purposes therein mentioned.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set 
my hand the day and year aforesaid 
-----------
Magistrate and Justice of the Peace 
John Michel 
Notary Public.

[Note written vertically across text]
Christiana Dener
Mr Cole 
July 28 1851
Mr Thompson

Ex by the [illegible] 
Aug 10-51

State of North Carolina } 
Wake County } I hereby appoint 
M Thompson Esqr of Washington City to use and 
carry into effect all the powers conferred upon me 
in the foregoing power of attorney. In witness 
whereof I have hereunto set my hand this 
25th day of July 1851.
Witness | George Little [word Seal encircled]
W White Jr.
Page 41

State of South Carolina }
--City of Charleston--} SS.

Be it known, That on this Twelvth [Twelfth] day of 
July Anno Domini eighteen hundred and fifty one 
before the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace in and 
for the City and State aforesaid, personally appeared 
Christiana Dener a resident of the City of Charleston 
and State of South Carolina, and made oath according 
to law that she is the identical Christiana Dener 
who applied for a pension under Act of 7th July 1838 
as the widow of George Frederick Dener who was 
a Revolutionary officer of the United States 
from the State of South Carolina, that she has 
been informed that the said Pension ought to be 
allowed; that she is directly interested as a claimant 
in said Pension and makes this affidavit to be filed 
with such additional evidence or arguments as my 
Agent may use in prosecuting this claim.
Sworn to and subscribed, the }
day and year aforesaid, before me } Christiana Dener 
John Michel 
Magistrate & Justice of the Peace.
Page 42

I John Michel Magistrate & Justice of the Peace, in 
and for said City do hereby certify that Mrs 
Christiana Dener who executed the foregoing paper 
is a respectable resident of this City, and is, I 
believe, directly interested in said claim as 
therein set forth.--
John Michel 
---Justice of the Peace 
and Magistrate

I Daniel Horlbeck Clerk of the Court of 
Common Pleas of the City of Charleston and 
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that John 
Michel, before whom the foregoing papers 
were executed, was, at the date of the same, a 
Justice of the Peace in and for said City duly 
authorized by law to administer oaths; and the 
name thereunto subscribed is his signature.
[Blurred official seal] In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto 
subscribed my name and affixed my 
official seal this twelth [twelfth] day 
of July Anno Domini 1851.
Danl. Horlbeck
Clerk
Page 43

Charleston So Ca
20 July 1839 

Sir 

I take the liberty of laying before 
you the annexed affidavit in the case of Mrs 
Christiana Dener, and would respectfully 
refer to the previous affidvt. of the witness, as illustrating 
this

I have the honor 
to remain Sir 
Your most obedient and 
Humble Servant 
P Cantwell

To 
James L Edwards Esqr 
Commissioner of Pensions }
&c &c &c }
Page 44

19 July 1839
Case of Mrs C Dener
affdvt John Cart
Page 45

State of South Carolina } On this 19th day of July 1839 
District of Charleston } personally appeared before 
the undersigned Mr John Cart aged 78 a residt. of 
Charleston and a revolutionary pensioner, who being 
duly sworn deposeth, that, in reference to the 
question put to him as to the treatment of prisoners 
belonging to the militia who fell into the hands of the British 
upon the surrender of Charleston in May 1780, saith 
that for the first 2 or 3 months, they were treated with 
some indulgence, but limitted [limited] to remain within the 
City. That after the lapse of the above time, the Loyalists 
remonstrated against the policy of permitting the "rebels" 
to be employed to the detriment of themselves. Whereupon 
orders were issued for the purpose of obstructing them 
in the pursuant of their business, avocation, or mode of 
making out a living, and a series of persecutions inst
ituted with a view of inducing the prisoners aforesaid 
to quit the American Congress, and join the enemy. 
Deponent saith he has every reason to believe 
that said George F. Dener of the German Fusiliers 
endured this description of trial, and remained 
faithful to the cause of Revolution, to the end 
of the War, as set forth in his declaration previous
ly made in this case. 
Sworn to and subscribed before me } John Cart
the day & year above written }
P Cantwell }
Not Pub & Qtr for }
Charleston Dist So Ca }
Page 46

Washington 

Hon Jas. E. Heath 
Commissioner of Pensions.

Sir

I have the honor of your official report of 
9th ult. upon the claim of Christian Dener, of South 
Carolina.  Before I proceed to notice your 
learned dissertation on "painting on the walls," or enter 
upon, the office of a Sancho Pango, and participate in 
your Quixotic "assault upon Savannah," for the 
purpose of conjuring evidence, (if it may be so called) 
at most, but negative and inferential, to invalidate 
the positive testimony of John Cart, W. Nurse, Mrs. 
Gruber, Mrs. Godfrey and Joseph Righton (all 
revolutionary pensioners) John Strobel, David 
Horlbeck and Edward Cranston (testimony, it must 
be admitted, more than doubly sufficient to satisfy any 
intelligent, impartial and unprejudiced judge, or jury 
under the sun, of the justice and legality of the claim.) 
I beg leave respectfully to refer to that portion of 
your letter in which you say to me, "you have entirely 
mistaken the nature of the pension laws, which were 
not enacted for the settlement of vested rights, but for 
the distribution of donations and gratuities, and in doing 
which, the donors had a perfect right to prescribe 
the terms on which they should be dispensed."
Page 47

I assent to the truth of every proposition you have 
thus laid down.  You have not understood my 
argument: I have not maintained, as you seem to 
suppose, nor do I maintain, that there were "vested 
rights" to pensions, previous to the passage of a 
law or laws granting pensions.

I do maintain that the enactment of a law 
granting pensions, did, at the instant of [repeated: of] such 
enactment, vest rights in the class of persons enumerated 
in such law, which could not be divested. 

I am sustained in this view by the opinion of 
the Attorney Gen'l. of 9th June 1825, page 481, of 
document 55, in which he says in regard to the 
widow's rights to a pension "It is a vested right--
a vested and perfect right."  This opinion is 
adopted and approved by another Attorney Gen'l. 
wide opinions of the Attorneys Gen'l. page 1013,  
At page 1101 of opinions of the Attorneys Gen'l. the 
Attorney Gen'l. says -- "The right of the widow under 
the act is to be regarded as a vested interest accruing 
on the passage of the law."  Same work, page 201, the 
Attorney Gen'l. says, that even "Congress cannot divest a
vested right."  If know full well, that pensions 
partake of the nature, and are in fact "donations and 
gratuities," and that, in this, as in all other cases, of 
donations and gratuities, Congress, the donor, had the
Page 48

right to prescribe the manner in which these 
donations should be distributed. And what I said 
was; "that" when Congress devolved upon the Secretary 
the duty of executing the pension laws, they did not 
expect him to adopt a novel and arbitrary system of 
rules and regulations, subversive of the common law rules 
of evidence.  I maintained and still maintain that 
Congress expected the Secretary to be governed in the 
adjudication of pension claims, by the same rules which 
prevail at law and equity in all judicial tribunals, as 
it regards the character and degree of evidence, necessary 
to establish any given fact.

I think this is a proposition 
quite too plain to be controverted.

This was my argument; 
and if I am right, the claim of Mrs. Dener has been 
established, by threefold more and better evidence 
than would be necessary to establish the same claim 
in any court of law or equity in this country.

In my printed argument of 15th Dec. last, you  
will find the authorities abundantly sustaining me 
upon this point.

Unless you are more desirous from 
usage, principal, or policy, to reject than to admit 
just claims, I can see no motive for an exploration of 
the regions of the fine arts, or of a toilsome and
Page 49

dangerous march to Savannah for mere inferences (for 
they amount to nothing more) to invalidate the testimony 
of the cloud of respectable witnesses in this case.

You must be hard run, nay driven to the very wall for a 
ground of objection to this claim when such expedients are 
resorted to for its rejection.  You will find by the 
inclosed [enclosed] letter from Edward Cranston, a grandson of Mrs. 
Dener, that the result of your expedition will be as 
disastrous to you, as was the assault of the Americans
upon that post, in the times that tried mens souls.  But 
here the analogy ceases.  There were actuated by brave and 
patriotic motives; and deserved a better fate.  Yours, 
I can regard in no other light, than as an attempt to evade 
the testimony of the above named witnesses, and indirectly 
to impeach their credibility.  For I repeat what is too 
plain to be questioned; if the cloud of witnesses who have 
testified in support of the claim are to be believed, the 
claim is legal and just, and must be admitted,  If 
your object is to attack the witnesses, why not march 
boldly, instead of this insidious, circuitous manner to the 
assault?  There is a degree of positiveness and 
certainty in the evidence before you, in this case, which all 
the negatives and inferences that human ingenuity could 
invent, cannot shake.

I have the honor to be [illegible]

M Thompson
Atty for Dener
Page 50

P.S. In your fondness 
for paintings, it appears a 
little remarkable, that you 
should have entirely overloo
ked the portrait of Lieut. George 
F. Dener, himself, in the uniform 
of an officer of the German 
Fusilier Company.
Page 51

South Carolina } On this 24 day of July 
District of Charleston } 1839 personally appeared 
Daniel Holbeck Esquire attorney at law, resident of 
Charleston, who being sworn deposeth, that, he is the 
keeper of the records and treasurer of the German 
Fusilier Company and Society, and saith that, 
the records of the corps from 1779 to 1783 are not 
in his possession, nor does he know where they 
are.  The general impression is that they are 
lost saith he makes this Declaration in reference 
to the claim of the widow of George Fredk. Dener 
and that, [illegible] any information that, might be 
obtained from said record is in this manner 
not to be had
Sworn to and subscribed before me } Danl. Horlbeck
this 24 day of July 1839 } Treasurer and Keeper 
P Cantwell Not Pub & Qtr for sd Dist } of Records of German 
Fusiler So. & Compy.

South Carolina } On this 24th day of July 1839 
District of Charleston } personally appeared George B. 
Eckhardt Esqr, aged 44, City attorney residing in Charles
ton, who being sworn deposeth that, he has been a  
member of said German Fusilier Company since 1814 & 
Captain of it from 1820 to 1828, and that it is his 
belief, and he believes the personal opinion of compe
tent parties, that, the said Geo F. Dener, was a member 
of the German Fusilier Company at some time during the period of the Revolution 
and that, the records of the said company from 1780 to a 
period subsequent to the peace of 1783 is lost, and are not 
forthcoming, and that, therefore any evidence deducible 
from them of revolutionary services are of course not to be had
Sworn to & subscribed before me the day & year above written } G B Eckhardt
"1820" in 6 line, and the words "some time during" 9th line first }
are authenticated }
P Cantwell, Not Pub & Qtr for }
Charleston Dist So Ca }
Page 52

Washington July 8th 1847-

Sir

I enclose herewith a power of 
attorney from Mrs Christiana Dener an 
applicant for pension from S. C. to 
Col Little of Raleigh N.C. who has trans
ferred it to me with a request that I 
should prosecute the claim as agent. As
I am informed the case has been before 
the department many years & not 
being apprised of the objections against 
it I respectfully ask to be informed 
of its condition & what further evidence 
is required to complete the testimony 

Col Little also request me 
to investigate the case of Wm Choice
decd of S. C. who made application a few 
years since for a pension, but who has 
since died & left a widow may I 
also ask in this case that a copy of 
the last correspondence in this case be 
furnished, or that I may see the papers

Very Respectfully
Your Obdt Servant

N. Leake

Hon J L Edwards 
Com of Pensions
Page 53

WASHINGTON, December 15, 1851.

HON. JAS. E. HEATH,

SIR:--I have the honor of your official communication of 25th ult., "in the case of Catharine Dener, widow of George 
Frederick," in which you say: "I find among them (the papers) no power of attorney appointing you to act in the 
matter," &c. I stand prepared to prove, that I exhibited an ample power of attorney from the claimant, executed sub
stantially in the forms prescribed by your office, and which was duly filed therein, upon which I was permitted by the 
proper functionaries, to make a thorough examination of all the papers on file in this case, and to take a complete sub
stantial synopsis of the evidence on file in the case, which I now have; and if that power of attorney has been mislaid 
in your office, and is not to be found where it perhaps should be, in juxtaposition with the papers in the case, the fault is 
certainly not mine,--nor can I conceive with what propriety, reason or justice, I, or the claimant, should be subjected 
to any delay, trouble or inconvenience, in consequence of any official mismanagement or dereliction, nor do I suppose 
for a moment that any will ensue. In your letter above referred to, you also say: "The papers transmitted to this 
office by you in the case of Catharine Dener," &c. It is not very likely that I would be entrusted with the transmis
sion of papers in the case, if I were not clothed with the authority to act in the matter," and as an evidence (if it were 
wanting,) of my continued sufficiently authorized agency "in the matter," and that I am not a usurper, assuming the 
exercise of power not properly conferred upon me, I am instructed to present herewith, important additional evidence 
in support of the claim of Mrs. Dener.

Upon an examination of the papers on file in this case, I considered the claim clearly established by the evidence ori
ginally deduced, and found it impossible to imagine upon what ground the claim had been suspended by your predeces
sor,--therefore, in the letter I had the honor to address you upon the subject, under date of 7th October last, I deemed 
it quite sufficient, at the request of the claimant, respectfully to solicit a re examination of the case, and to advert, briefly 
as I did, to a few of the most material parts of the evidence in support of the claim, not doubting for a moment, that the 
case would be taken up, as it were, de novo, without bias or prejudice growing out of the adverse decision of your 
predecessor, and receive that respectful, full and fair consideration and adjudication, demanded by its merits and legali
ty, and a proper discharge of official duty, in which event, I as confidently predicted the prompt issuance of a pension 
certificate, and so advised the claimant. But instead of this, I have been met by a reiteration of the objections raised 
by your predecessor, the utter unreasonableness and untenableness of which I beg most respectfully to show.  But be
fore I enter upon the body of this case, I beg leave to make a few remarks, arising out of, and applicable to this and 
all similar cases.

It was doubtless the intention of Congress in the enactment of pension laws, that the common law and equity rules, 
as to the sufficiency of evidence should prevail in their execution.  The converse of this proposition, will not, I feel sure, 
be maintained by any intelligent and candid mind. It is quite too evident to admit of a doubt, that if Congress had 
intended that a higher standard of evidence should be required in the adjudication of this class of claims, than would be 
sufficient to satisfy the minds of an intelligent court and jury, they would have said so.  If there is any tribunal in this 
country, either legislative, executive, governmental, departmental, or judicial, that is not, or which should not be bound 
by the common law and equity rules of evidence as established, and uniformly adhered to, in every judicial tribunal, 
in every government, making the least pretensions to freedom, from the days of Justinian to the present, I have 
yet to know it.

I say, if there is any tribunal or authority in this land of boasted liberal laws, unknown, superior to, and disregardful 
of the common law of England, as applicable to the particular case in question, I should like to know it, and it is time 
the public should know it.

Chief Justice Story says there is no such tribunal or authority.

It is matter of judicial history that our ancestors brought with them from the mother country the common law of 
England, or at least so much of it as was adopted to their new condition, and that the same has been recognized, and 
adopted by the general, and all the State and territorial governments, with certain modifications.  But what modi
fications may have been found necessary by our new state of things, and new forms of government, that branch of Eng
land's boasted system of jurisprudence, relating to evidence, especially the sufficiency of evidence, has been adopted 
unaltered and unmodified, in all its length and breadth, by the general and every State government, and considered of 
absolutely binding authority in every judicial tribunal in this broad republic. That degree of evidence which was suf
ficient to carry conviction to the mind of a Littleton, a Coke, a Hale, a Bacon and a Mansfield, has ever been sufficient 
to satisfy the mind of a Marshall, a Kent, a Story and a Taney,--and will it not suffice for your mind?  I trow it 
will! And if so, the result of the present case can no longer be doubtful.

Apropos: Mr. Story, in one of his admirable works, after remarking generally, that the courts of the United States 
and of the several States, as well as the State legislatures and the Congress of the United States, are bound by the com
mon law rules of evidence, proceeds to say, totidem verbis: "The general rules of law and evidence applicable to com
mon trials, are interposed to prevent the party against the exercise of wanton and arbitrary power."

In the case under consideration, it is claimed that George F. Dener of South Carolina, served as a lieutenant in the 
revolutionary war.  In answer to this, in the report before me, you say: "The regulations require that the rank of a 
commissioned officer shall be established by the production of his commission, or of some other record, or documentary 
testimony," &c. You further say, in substance, that before a pension can be granted to claimant she must show by 
record evidence that her husband, served as a lieutenant," &c. If this is a governing regulation in your department, 
and I am to understand therefrom, that nothing short of record, or documentary evidence will be sufficient to establish 
a claim for services as an officer, the rule or regulation strikes at the very root, and is subversive of all the above named 
land marks of English and American jurisprudence.  But I do not understand it. I have also carefully examined in 
vain, your published official regulations, for the enunciation of any such a rule.  You say: "The rank of a commis
sioned officer shall be established by the production of record evidence," &c.,--doubtless it would be "established by 
the production of record evidence," &c. But I do not thereby understand you, nor do I presume you would pretend 
to say, that parole evidence would not be sufficient to establish the same fact, in the absence of record evidence. It 
would not be within the prerogative of the secretary or any other public functionary to establish any such rule or re
gulation. Such a rule or regulation, would be a species of executive legislation, not contemplated by Congress, and at 
variance with the true, intent and spirit of the pension laws. When Congress devolved upon the secretary, the duty 
of executing the pension laws, under such rules and regulations as he might prescribe, they did not expect him to adopt 
an arbitrary system of rules and regulations in regard to the character and degree of evidence, unknown, and un
practiced in judicial tribunals, and calculated to defeat the objects and ends of those laws.

They expected his rules and regulations to be merely ancillary and subordinate to the design of the laws, and be confined to the
Page 54

2

forms of application, modes of authenticating papers, &c. I say it was not the intention of Congress to confer upon the 
secretary a power or authority to demolish every vestige of the law of evidence, and erect upon its ruins, a utopian 
superstructure, or standard of evidence, far above the reach and the comprehension of ordinary minds and capacities, 
like the laws of a certain ancient lawgiver and tyrant, who caused his laws to be written obscurely, and placed so high 
up in the air, that but few could reach, or understand them, and then punished his subjects for their violation.

Distant claimants, upon reading the pension laws, very naturally conclude, that you will be satisfied with the same 
amount and degree of evidence that would be sufficient to establish similar claims in a court of law or equity, and go to 
work, and make out their claims accordingly, and when presented, they are told by you, that this will not do,--that a
much greater amount of evidence is requisite, and such an amount and degree of evidence, as render the law, in many 
equally meritorious and just cases, a nullity, a species of tantalization and mockery.  Thus injustice and injury is often 
done to honest claimants. But, whatever may be said, as to the existence or non existence of any such a rule, to the 
honor of your office, be it spoken, but little or no attention has been paid to it, for it comes within my knowl
edge, that it is your constant practice to admit claims, and issue pension for services, in every grade of office, 
without the smallest particle of record or documentary evidence, and I can refer you, if need be, to many such 
cases, and several in which I have been personally interested as attorney. 

It is one of the proudest boasts of English liberty, secured by magna charta, extorted, it is true, by the Bar
ons, from King John at Runny Meade, in the 13th century,--that the humblest citizen or subject, having a claim or 
demand against the government or King, may file his petition in the court of chancery (by what is called a 
petition of right) where the chancellor will administer right, as a matter of constitutional law, according to the 
rules of evidence as expounded by such luminaries of the English bar, as Lord Bacon, Archibald, Philips, and 
Starkie, to which I shall hereafter refer more particularly. And in all such cases, according to Chief Justice 
Blackstone, the chanceller, is rather the counsel for the claimant, than the advocate or defender of the govern
ment or King. He does not stand Cerberus like, or sword in hand, as it were, at the gates of the treasury, 
but administers justice with a liberal hand, and is required even to give the claimant the benefit of all reasona
ble doubts. If he errs, he errs on the side of liberality,--weekness and charity, if not absolute law and justice, 
and not on the side of oppression, power, and patronage. If such principles as these had governed in the inves
tigation of Mrs. Dener's claim, it would not now be my humble duty to trouble you in this form,--instead of 
which, she would long ago have been in the enjoyment of that pittance which Congress evidently designed should 
be granted, without unnecessary delay, in all cases like the present.

If you will now be pleased to accompany me through an examination of the evidence (and I promise to be as 
brief as practicable) on file, and apply thereto the principles, which, it has been seen, should govern your de
cision in the case, the result cannot fail to be a certificate in favor of the claimant for her husband's two years 
services as lieutenant in the war of the revolution.

Christiana Dener, declares that her husband George F. Dener, became a member of a light infantry corps in 
1776, and served as lieutenant of said corps, in the revolutionary war, twelve months previous to the surrender 
of Charleston, S. C., at which time he was taken prisoner, and detained in captivity twelve months--then es
caped and served under Marion. Then, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company--became lieu
tenant of said corps, and served therein as lieutenant from September 1782 to September 1783,--making in all, more 
than two years active service, as lieutenant in the war, besides twelve months' imprisonment in the hands 
of the enemy, the most humiliating and disagreeable of all situations, or services, to a brave and patriotic 
mind, ready to shed his blood in the cause of his country and of freedom. I need not stop to say what does 
not admit of a question, that a pension is as much due for the period of his imprisonment, as for the most ac
tive, efficient service in the American ranks.

Her declaration is fully corroborated, for all practical purposes, by John Cart, a revolutionary pensioner, who swears 
positively and unequivocally, of his own personal knowledge, that said Dener served not less than two years as an offi
cer, (lieutenant) in the revolution. He says Dener was made a prisoner at the surrender of Charleston, and remained 
in captivity with the enemy, one year. Was afterwards, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company, 
commissioned lieutenant, and served in that capacity, as Mrs. Dener states. When he says Dener was in service "two 
years or more as lieutenant," he doubtless means that he was in active service two years or more, besides the twelve 
months' imprisonment, for that, in the language of that day, and in common parlance, was not considered service.

Such scenes as the battles of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, imprisonment, escape, &c., 
through which, it is said, Dener passed, are the best calculated of all others, to make a distinct and lasting impression 
upon the human mind, and such scenes as render it literally impossible they should be mistaken in their testimony so 
long as reason retains her seat,--and they are not only intelligent and respectable, but shown to be of the highest and 
most unimpeachable character for truth and veracity. Their testimony is also sufficiently corroborated by that of W. 
Nurse, Mrs. Gruber, Mrs Godfrey and Joseph Righton, revolutionary pensioners, and also that of John Stroble, Da
vid Horlbeck and Edmund Cranston herewith transmitted, all of whom, in point of character for intelligence and respect
ability, truth and veracity, have no superiors in South Carolina. It is the least likely thing under the sun, that all, or 
any one of the above named persons, have sworn falsely or incorrectly, in any essential particular. To attribute false
hood, false swearing, perjury, if you please, (for that it would be,) to all, or to any one of these persons, in such a case, 
would shock the moral sense of all who know them. It is what South Carolinians and those who know them best could 
never be made to believe for a moment! Nay, their feelings would revolt at the bare suggestion of a proposition in
volving the least degree of such an imputation. They have either sworn truly, or they have sworn falsely. If you 
are satisfied they have sworn the truth, you will admit this claim. If, on the contrary, you reject this claim, (which I 
do not, cannot believe,) you thereby declare in terms not be be misunderstood, that they have sworn falsely, and been 
guilty of perjury. That is the complexion to which it would come, and it could not be disguised! Are you prepared 
for this? No. And I know you will not be!

Having said thus much upon the evidence as a whole, I will not occupy your time longer, by animadverting upon the 
same in detail, but leave you to that well considered, deliberate and thorough examination of the same, in all its parts 
and bearings, which I conceive, cannot fail to lead you to the same conclusion to which I have arrived, as to the legal
ity of this claim, and next proceed to give the law, respecting the sufficiency of evidence, as applicable to this case; 
according to which, it will be seen, that the uncorroborated testimony of one of the above witnesses, say that of John 
Cart, who testifies, positively of his own knowledge, the said Dener, rendered at least two years service as lieutenant, 
is sufficient to establish this claim to two years service at least,--and when corroborated, as it is, by all the other wit
nesses, facts and circumstances, testified to, the evidence becomes abundantly cumulative and strong,  methinks, as 
"proofs of Holy Writ."
Page 55

3

In Bacon's Abridgement, volume 2, page 597: "It is holden by my Lord Chief Justice Holt, that at common 
law it was not necessary in any case, that a proof of any matter of fact, should  be made by more than one witness, and 
that the single testimony of one credible witness was sufficient to prove any fact." And it is the constant practice of the 
courts of equity in England, and in this country, to ground their decrees upon the testimony of a single witness. The 
ecclesiastical courts of England were also compelled to observe these rules. Vide, the authority above referred to, 
Archibald's Criminal Evidence, page 156-7. It is held, that in cases of treason and perjury, the testimony of two witnesses 
is necessary, or one witness corroborating circumstances: "In all other cases one witness is sufficient."

See, also, 2d Hawk, 6, 46, 2; Fost, 233, where the same principles are maintained. Philips on Evidence, vol. 3, 
page 565, "one credible witness is sufficient even to convict of a crime, and a useless repetition of witnesses is dis
countenanced by law. The Judge might by the civil law, in his discretion, stop the multiplication of witnesses to the 
same matter, and this is not an unusual exercise of discretion in our own courts." See, also, Wood's Civil Law, 317,
"Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, page 324, also says, "that whatever was evidence at common law, is still good evi
dence under the express constitutional and statutory provisions of the American government." You thus perceive, 
Sir, that upon these principles, if George Frederick Dener were upon his trial for treason or perjury, with the weight 
of evidence before you, he could be convicted, and, in England, drawn and quartered, and his head severed from his 
body, and placed at the disposal of the sovereign.

Again, Starkie on Evidence, vol. 1, page 552; "the testimony of a single witness, where there is no ground for 
suspecting either his ability or his integrity, is a sufficient legal ground for belief; that it is strong enough to produce 
actual belief, every man's experience will vouch." Now, Sir, we have seen the integrity of these witnesses to be 
above suspicion; and as to their ability--they have detailed with sufficient particularity the facts and circumstances, 
which enabled them to know the truths to which they testified. Their ability to know the truths to which they have 
testified is as unquestionable as their integrity, and you cannot question the one without, at the same time, questioning 
the other. Bouvier says, vol. 2, page 659, "when we are called upon to rely on the testimony of another, in order to 
form a judgment as to certain facts, we must be certain, 1st, that he knows the facts in question, and that he is not 
mistaken; and, 2dly, that he is disposed to tell the truth, and has no desire to impose on those who are to form a 
judgment on his testimony. The confidence, therefore, which we give to the witness must be considered, in the first 
place, by his capacity or his organization, and, in the next, by the interest or motive which he has to tell or not to tell 
the truth. When the facts to which the witness testifies agree with the circumstances which are known to exist, he 
becomes much more credible than when there is a contradiction in this respect. It is true," he says, "that, until im
peached, one witness is as good as another, and that one witness is sufficient to establish a fact."

Now let us apply the touch stone of these principles in weighing the evidence.  The battle of Beaufort, Stono and 
Savannah, surrender of Charleston, after a protracted siege, capture and imprisonment of Americans twelve months, 
are all matters of history. It is equally matter of fact, (I was about to say history,) that at the period of these scenes 
and incidents, there was in Charleston an independent infantry corps, called "German Fuseliers," and that George 
F. Dener was lieutenant of said corps from 1776 to his death, in 1795, and that said corps served in the Revolutionary 
war in the manner stated in Mrs. D.'s declaration, the following named persons having been pensioners for services in 
said corps, to wit: Mary Kelly, widow of John, Ann Cobia, widow of Nicholas, Franzinia Goelzinger, widow of 
Adam, and Mary Belser, widow of ---. Now was Mrs. Dener, and those who have testified in support of her 
claim, in position to know the facts to which they have sworn? They, (Mrs. D. and all,) were in exact position, 
for all the world, to see and to know the facts to which they have testified. They were all citizens of Charleston, 
where it is evident from the testimony, not less than two years service, (including the twelve months imprisonment,) 
was rendered by Dener, and being his neighbors and intimate acquaintances, could not possibly be mistaken. Mrs. 
Gruber and Mrs. Godfrey, as well as  Mrs. D., were in position to witness, and to know his services and imprisonment 
which passed under their eyes in Charleston. The best possible evidence that the witnesses in this case were in posi
tion to know the services performed by Dener, as testified to, is to be found in the fact, that they are, or have been, 
in receipt of pensions for their participation in those very services.  All the evidence and circumstances of this case 
prove incontestibly that Dener was in a position to perform the services attributed to him. And if, instead of perform
ing the services alleged, he had abandoned his post of duty, deserted, and acted cowardly, or tory like, would these 
brave and patriotic whigs have come forward, and conspire, at the price of perjury, to establish this claim? NO! 
Sir, they would ever afterwards have viewed him with scorn and contempt. Nay! They would ever afterwards have 
execrated his very name. Thus, you see sir, that the claim of Christiana Dener to a pension for two years (not less) 
services, as Lieutenant in the Revolutionary war, by her husband, George F. Dener, cannot be rejected, without a 
disregard of every feeling of gratitude, every principle of law, equity, reason, and justice--every rational presumption, 
and all the known principles of human nature and action.

It will also brand these several witnesses with the crime of perjury, as far as your action can fix such a stigma; a 
result too monstrous and painful to be contemplated, or to be expected from an impartial mind, conscious of its own 
rectitude, and, therefore, not ready to suspect others capable of crime before High Heaven, and that, too, in a matter 
in which they can have no real or imaginary interest or motive to misrepresent, or even exaggerate in the smallest de
gree.  I have the honor to be, &c., 
M. THOMPSON, 
Attorney, &c.
Page 56

When was 
she admitted 
upon the pens
ion roll?
___
Under what 
act?
___
At what 
rate per an
num & for 
what time 
as lieut?
__
At what 
rate per 
annum & 
for what 
time as private

[Written vertically right margin]

Catherine Dener
widow of George Frederick 
of So. Co.
Page 57

[Duplicate of image 53]

WASHINGTON, December 15, 1851. 

 HON. JAS. E. HEATH,  

SIR:--I have the honor of your official communication of 25th ult., "in the case of Catharine Dener, widow of George 
Frederick," in which you say: "I find among them (the papers) no power of attorney appointing you to act in the  
matter," &c. I stand prepared to prove, that I exhibited an ample power of attorney from the claimant, executed sub 
stantially in the forms prescribed by your office, and which was duly filed therein, upon which I was permitted by the  
proper functionaries, to make a thorough examination of all the papers on file in this case, and to take a complete sub 
stantial synopsis of the evidence on file in the case, which I now have; and if that power of attorney has been mislaid  
in your office, and is not to be found where it perhaps should be, in juxtaposition with the papers in the case, the fault is  
certainly not mine,--nor can I conceive with what propriety, reason or justice, I, or the claimant, should be subjected  
to any delay, trouble or inconvenience, in consequence of any official mismanagement or dereliction, nor do I suppose  
for a moment that any will ensue. In your letter above referred to, you also say: "The papers transmitted to this  
office by you in the case of Catharine Dener," &c. It is not very likely that I would be entrusted with the transmis
sion of papers in the case, if I were not clothed with the authority to act in the matter," and as an evidence (if it were  
wanting,) of my continued sufficiently authorized agency "in the matter," and that I am not a usurper, assuming the  
exercise of power not properly conferred upon me, I am instructed to present herewith, important additional evidence  
in support of the claim of Mrs. Dener.  

Upon an examination of the papers on file in this case, I considered the claim clearly established by the evidence ori
ginally deduced, and found it impossible to imagine upon what ground the claim had been suspended by your predeces 
sor,--therefore, in the letter I had the honor to address you upon the subject, under date of 7th October last, I deemed  
it quite sufficient, at the request of the claimant, respectfully to solicit a re examination of the case, and to advert, briefly  
as I did, to a few of the most material parts of the evidence in support of the claim, not doubting for a moment, that the  
case would be taken up, as it were, de novo, without bias or prejudice growing out of the adverse decision of your 
predecessor, and receive that respectful, full and fair consideration and adjudication, demanded by its merits and legali
ty, and a proper discharge of official duty, in which event, I as confidently predicted the prompt issuance of a pension 
certificate, and so advised the claimant. But instead of this, I have been met by a reiteration of the objections raised  
by your predecessor, the utter unreasonableness and untenableness of which I beg most respectfully to show. But be
fore I enter upon the body of this case, I beg leave to make a few remarks, arising out of, and applicable to this and  
all similar cases.  

It was doubtless the intention of Congress in the enactment of pension laws, that the common law and equity rules,  
as to the sufficiency of evidence should prevail in their execution. The converse of this proposition, will not, I feel sure,  
be maintained by any intelligent and candid mind. It is quite too evident to admit of a doubt, that if Congress had 
intended that a higher standard of evidence should be required in the adjudication of this class of claims, than would be 
sufficient to satisfy the minds of an intelligent court and jury, they would have said so. If there is any tribunal in this  
country, either legislative, executive, governmental, departmental, or judicial, that is not, or which should not be bound  
by the common law and equity rules of evidence as established, and uniformly adhered to, in every judicial tribunal,  
in every government, making the least pretensions to freedom, from the days of Justinian to the present, I have 
yet to know it.  

I say, if there is any tribunal or authority in this land of boasted liberal laws, unknown, superior to, and disregardful 
of the common law of England, as applicable to the particular case in question, I should like to know it, and it is time  
the public should know it.  

Chief Justice Story says there is no such tribunal or authority.  

It is matter of judicial history that our ancestors brought with them from the mother country the common law of  
England, or at least so much of it as was adopted to their new condition, and that the same has been recognized, and  
adopted by the general, and all the State and territorial governments, with certain modifications. But what modi 
fications may have been found necessary by our new state of things, and new forms of government, that branch of Eng 
land's boasted system of jurisprudence, relating to evidence, especially the sufficiency of evidence, has been adopted 
unaltered and unmodified, in all its length and breadth, by the general and every State government, and considered of  
absolutely binding authority in every judicial tribunal in this broad republic. That degree of evidence which was suf 
ficient to carry conviction to the mind of a Littleton, a Coke, a Hale, a Bacon and a Mansfield, has ever been sufficient  
to satisfy the mind of a Marshall, a Kent, a Story and a Taney,--and will it not suffice for your mind? I trow it  
will! And if so, the result of the present case can no longer be doubtful.  

Apropos: Mr. Story, in one of his admirable works, after remarking generally, that the courts of the United States  
and of the several States, as well as the State legislatures and the Congress of the United States, are bound by the com 
mon law rules of evidence, proceeds to say, totidem verbis: "The general rules of law and evidence applicable to com 
mon trials, are interposed to prevent the party against the exercise of wanton and arbitrary power."  

In the case under consideration, it is claimed that George F. Dener of South Carolina, served as a lieutenant in the  
revolutionary war. In answer to this, in the report before me, you say: "The regulations require that the rank of a  
commissioned officer shall be established by the production of his commission, or of some other record, or documentary  
testimony," &c. You further say, in substance, that before a pension can be granted to claimant she must show by  
record evidence that her husband, served as a lieutenant," &c. If this is a governing regulation in your department,  
and I am to understand therefrom, that nothing short of record, or documentary evidence will be sufficient to establish  
a claim for services as an officer, the rule or regulation strikes at the very root, and is subversive of all the above named  
land marks of English and American jurisprudence. But I do not understand it. I have also carefully examined in  
vain, your published official regulations, for the enunciation of any such a rule. You say: "The rank of a commis 
sioned officer shall be established by the production of record evidence," &c.,--doubtless it would be "established by  
the production of record evidence," &c. But I do not thereby understand you, nor do I presume you would pretend  
to say, that parole evidence would not be sufficient to establish the same fact, in the absence of record evidence. It  
would not be within the prerogative of the secretary or any other public functionary to establish any such rule or re 
gulation. Such a rule or regulation, would be a species of executive legislation, not contemplated by Congress, and at  
variance with the true, intent and spirit of the pension laws. When Congress devolved upon the secretary, the duty  
of executing the pension laws, under such rules and regulations as he might prescribe, they did not expect him to adopt  
an arbitrary system of rules and regulations in regard to the character and degree of evidence, unknown, and un 
practiced in judicial tribunals, and calculated to defeat the objects and ends of those laws.  

They expected his rules and regulations to be merely ancillary and subordinate to the design of the laws, and be confined to the
Page 58

[Duplicate of image 54]

2  

to the forms of application, modes of authenticating papers, &c. I say it was not the intention of Congress to confer upon the  
secretary a power or authority to demolish every vestige of the law of evidence, and erect upon its ruins, a utopian  
superstructure, or standard of evidence, far above the reach and the comprehension of ordinary minds and capacities,  
like the laws of a certain ancient lawgiver and tyrant, who caused his laws to be written obscurely, and placed so high  
up in the air, that but few could reach, or understand them, and then punished his subjects for their violation.  

Distant claimants, upon reading the pension laws, very naturally conclude, that you will be satisfied with the same  
amount and degree of evidence that would be sufficient to establish similar claims in a court of law or equity, and go to  
work, and make out their claims accordingly, and when presented, they are told by you, that this will not do,--that a 
much greater amount of evidence is requisite, and such an amount and degree of evidence, as render the law, in many  
equally meritorious and just cases, a nullity, a species of tantalization and mockery. Thus injustice and injury is often  
done to honest claimants. But, whatever may be said, as to the existence or non existence of any such a rule, to the  
honor of your office, be it spoken, but little or no attention has been paid to it, for it comes within my knowl 
edge, that it is your constant practice to admit claims, and issue pension for services, in every grade of office,  
without the smallest particle of record or documentary evidence, and I can refer you, if need be, to many such  
cases, and several in which I have been personally interested as attorney.   

It is one of the proudest boasts of English liberty, secured by magna charta, extorted, it is true, by the Bar 
ons, from King John at Runny Meade, in the 13th century,--that the humblest citizen or subject, having a claim or  
demand against the government or King, may file his petition in the court of chancery (by what is called a  
petition of right) where the chancellor will administer right, as a matter of constitutional law, according to the  
rules of evidence as expounded by such luminaries of the English bar, as Lord Bacon, Archibald, Philips, and  
Starkie, to which I shall hereafter refer more particularly. And in all such cases, according to Chief Justice  
Blackstone, the chanceller, is rather the counsel for the claimant, than the advocate or defender of the govern 
ment or King. He does not stand Cerberus like, or sword in hand, as it were, at the gates of the treasury, 
but administers justice with a liberal hand, and is required even to give the claimant the benefit of all reasona 
ble doubts. If he errs, he errs on the side of liberality,--weekness and charity, if not absolute law and justice,  
and not on the side of oppression, power, and patronage. If such principles as these had governed in the inves 
tigation of Mrs. Dener's claim, it would not now be my humble duty to trouble you in this form,--instead of  
which, she would long ago have been in the enjoyment of that pittance which Congress evidently designed should  
be granted, without unnecessary delay, in all cases like the present.  

If you will now be pleased to accompany me through an examination of the evidence (and I promise to be as  
brief as practicable) on file, and apply thereto the principles, which, it has been seen, should govern your de 
cision in the case, the result cannot fail to be a certificate in favor of the claimant for her husband's two years  
services as lieutenant in the war of the revolution.  

Christiana Dener, declares that her husband George F. Dener, became a member of a light infantry corps in  
1776, and served as lieutenant of said corps, in the revolutionary war, twelve months previous to the surrender  
of Charleston, S. C., at which time he was taken prisoner, and detained in captivity twelve months--then es 
caped and served under Marion. Then, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company--became lieu 
tenant of said corps, and served therein as lieutenant from September 1782 to September 1783,--making in all, more  
than two years active service, as lieutenant in the war, besides twelve months' imprisonment in the hands  
of the enemy, the most humiliating and disagreeable of all situations, or services, to a brave and patriotic  
mind, ready to shed his blood in the cause of his country and of freedom. I need not stop to say what does  
not admit of a question, that a pension is as much due for the period of his imprisonment, as for the most ac 
tive, efficient service in the American ranks.  

Her declaration is fully corroborated, for all practical purposes, by John Cart, a revolutionary pensioner, who swears  
positively and unequivocally, of his own personal knowledge, that said Dener served not less than two years as an offi 
cer, (lieutenant) in the revolution. He says Dener was made a prisoner at the surrender of Charleston, and remained  
in captivity with the enemy, one year. Was afterwards, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company,  
commissioned lieutenant, and served in that capacity, as Mrs. Dener states. When he says Dener was in service "two  
years or more as lieutenant," he doubtless means that he was in active service two years or more, besides the twelve  
months' imprisonment, for that, in the language of that day, and in common parlance, was not considered service.  

Such scenes as the battles of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, imprisonment, escape, &c.,  
through which, it is said, Dener passed, are the best calculated of all others, to make a distinct and lasting impression  
upon the human mind, and such scenes as render it literally impossible they should be mistaken in their testimony so  
long as reason retains her seat,--and they are not only intelligent and respectable, but shown to be of the highest and  
most unimpeachable character for truth and veracity. Their testimony is also sufficiently corroborated by that of W.  
Nurse, Mrs. Gruber, Mrs Godfrey and Joseph Righton, revolutionary pensioners, and also that of John Stroble, Da 
vid Horlbeck and Edmund Cranston herewith transmitted, all of whom, in point of character for intelligence and respect 
ability, truth and veracity, have no superiors in South Carolina. It is the least likely thing under the sun, that all, or  
any one of the above named persons, have sworn falsely or incorrectly, in any essential particular. To attribute false 
hood, false swearing, perjury, if you please, (for that it would be,) to all, or to any one of these persons, in such a case,  
would shock the moral sense of all who know them. It is what South Carolinians and those who know them best could  
never be made to believe for a moment! Nay, their feelings would revolt at the bare suggestion of a proposition in 
volving the least degree of such an imputation. They have either sworn truly, or they have sworn falsely. If you  
are satisfied they have sworn the truth, you will admit this claim. If, on the contrary, you reject this claim, (which I  
do not, cannot believe,) you thereby declare in terms not be be misunderstood, that they have sworn falsely, and been  
guilty of perjury. That is the complexion to which it would come, and it could not be disguised! Are you prepared  
for this? No. And I know you will not be!  

Having said thus much upon the evidence as a whole, I will not occupy your time longer, by animadverting upon the  
same in detail, but leave you to that well considered, deliberate and thorough examination of the same, in all its parts  
and bearings, which I conceive, cannot fail to lead you to the same conclusion to which I have arrived, as to the legal 
ity of this claim, and next proceed to give the law, respecting the sufficiency of evidence, as applicable to this case;  
according to which, it will be seen, that the uncorroborated testimony of one of the above witnesses, say that of John  
Cart, who testifies, positively of his own knowledge, the said Dener, rendered at least two years service as lieutenant,  
is sufficient to establish this claim to two years service at least,--and when corroborated, as it is, by all the other wit 
nesses, facts and circumstances, testified to, the evidence becomes abundantly cumulative and strong, methinks, as  
"proofs of Holy Writ."
Page 59

[Duplicate of image 55 with the exception of the X in the left margin]

3 

In Bacon's Abridgement, volume 2, page 597: "It is holden by my Lord Chief Justice Holt, that at common  
law it was not necessary in any case, that a proof of any matter of fact, should be made by more than one witness, and  
that the single testimony of one credible witness was sufficient to prove any fact." And it is the constant practice of the  
courts of equity in England, and in this country, to ground their decrees upon the testimony of a single witness. The  
ecclesiastical courts of England were also compelled to observe these rules. Vide, the authority above referred to,  
Archibald's Criminal Evidence, page 156-7. It is held, that in cases of treason and perjury, the testimony of two witnesses 
is necessary, or one witness corroborating circumstances: "In all other cases one witness is sufficient."  

See, also, 2d Hawk, 6, 46, 2; Fost, 233, where the same principles are maintained. Philips on Evidence, vol. 3,  
page 565, "one credible witness is sufficient even to convict of a crime, and a useless repetition of witnesses is dis 
countenanced by law. The Judge might by the civil law, in his discretion, stop the multiplication of witnesses to the  
same matter, and this is not an unusual exercise of discretion in our own courts." See, also, Wood's Civil Law, 317, 
"Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, page 324, also says, "that whatever was evidence at common law, is still good evi 
dence under the express constitutional and statutory provisions of the American government." You thus perceive,  
Sir, that upon these principles, if George Frederick Dener were upon his trial for treason or perjury, with the weight  
of evidence before you, he could be convicted, and, in England, drawn and quartered, and his head severed from his  
body, and placed at the disposal of the sovereign.  

Again, Starkie on Evidence, vol. 1, page 552; "the testimony of a single witness, where there is no ground for  
suspecting either his ability or his integrity, is a sufficient legal ground for belief; that it is strong enough to produce  
actual belief, every man's experience will vouch." Now, Sir, we have seen the integrity of these witnesses to be  
above suspicion; and as to their ability--they have detailed with sufficient particularity the facts and circumstances,  
which enabled them to know the truths to which they testified. Their ability to know the truths to which they have  
testified is as unquestionable as their integrity, and you cannot question the one without, at the same time, questioning  
the other. Bouvier says, vol. 2, page 659, "when we are called upon to rely on the testimony of another, in order to  
form a judgment as to certain facts, we must be certain, 1st, that he knows the facts in question, and that he is not  
mistaken; and, 2dly, that he is disposed to tell the truth, and has no desire to impose on those who are to form a  
judgment on his testimony. The confidence, therefore, which we give to the witness must be considered, in the first  
place, by his capacity or his organization, and, in the next, by the interest or motive which he has to tell or not to tell  
the truth. When the facts to which the witness testifies agree with the circumstances which are known to exist, he  
becomes much more credible than when there is a contradiction in this respect. It is true," he says, "that, until im 
peached, one witness is as good as another, and that one witness is sufficient to establish a fact."  

Now let us apply the touch stone of these principles in weighing the evidence. The battle of Beaufort, Stono and  
Savannah, surrender of Charleston, after a protracted siege, capture and imprisonment of Americans twelve months,  
are all matters of history. It is equally matter of fact, (I was about to say history,) that at the period of these scenes  
and incidents, there was in Charleston an independent infantry corps, called "German Fuseliers," and that George  
F. Dener was lieutenant of said corps from 1776 to his death, in 1795, and that said corps served in the Revolutionary  
war in the manner stated in Mrs. D.'s declaration, the following named persons having been pensioners for services in  
said corps, to wit: Mary Kelly, widow of John, Ann Cobia, widow of Nicholas, Franzinia Goelzinger, widow of  
Adam, and Mary Belser, widow of ---. Now was Mrs. Dener, and those who have testified in support of her  
claim, in position to know the facts to which they have sworn? They, (Mrs. D. and all,) were in exact position,  
for all the world, to see and to know the facts to which they have testified. They were all citizens of Charleston,  
where it is evident from the testimony, not less than two years service, (including the twelve months imprisonment,)  
was rendered by Dener, and being his neighbors and intimate acquaintances, could not possibly be mistaken. Mrs.  
Gruber and Mrs. Godfrey, as well as Mrs. D., were in position to witness, and to know his services and imprisonment  
which passed under their eyes in Charleston. The best possible evidence that the witnesses in this case were in posi 
tion to know the services performed by Dener, as testified to, is to be found in the fact, that they are, or have been,  
in receipt of pensions for their participation in those very services. All the evidence and circumstances of this case  
prove incontestibly that Dener was in a position to perform the services attributed to him. And if, instead of perform 
ing the services alleged, he had abandoned his post of duty, deserted, and acted cowardly, or tory like, would these  
brave and patriotic whigs have come forward, and conspire, at the price of perjury, to establish this claim? NO!  
Sir, they would ever afterwards have viewed him with scorn and contempt. Nay! They would ever afterwards have  
[X in left margin] execrated his very name. Thus, you see sir, that the claim of Christiana Dener to a pension for two years (not less)  
services, as Lieutenant in the Revolutionary war, by her husband, George F. Dener, cannot be rejected, without a  
disregard of every feeling of gratitude, every principle of law, equity, reason, and justice--every rational presumption,  
and all the known principles of human nature and action.  

It will also brand these several witnesses with the crime of perjury, as far as your action can fix such a stigma; a  
result too monstrous and painful to be contemplated, or to be expected from an impartial mind, conscious of its own  
rectitude, and, therefore, not ready to suspect others capable of crime before High Heaven, and that, too, in a matter  
in which they can have no real or imaginary interest or motive to misrepresent, or even exaggerate in the smallest de 
gree. I have the honor to be, &c.,  
M. THOMPSON,  
Attorney, &c.
Page 60

[Duplicate of image 53] 

WASHINGTON, December 15, 1851.   

HON. JAS. E. HEATH,   

SIR:--I have the honor of your official communication of 25th ult., "in the case of Catharine Dener, widow of George  
Frederick," in which you say: "I find among them (the papers) no power of attorney appointing you to act in the  
matter," &c. I stand prepared to prove, that I exhibited an ample power of attorney from the claimant, executed sub  
stantially in the forms prescribed by your office, and which was duly filed therein, upon which I was permitted by the  
proper functionaries, to make a thorough examination of all the papers on file in this case, and to take a complete sub  
stantial synopsis of the evidence on file in the case, which I now have; and if that power of attorney has been mislaid  
in your office, and is not to be found where it perhaps should be, in juxtaposition with the papers in the case, the fault is  
certainly not mine,--nor can I conceive with what propriety, reason or justice, I, or the claimant, should be subjected  
to any delay, trouble or inconvenience, in consequence of any official mismanagement or dereliction, nor do I suppose  
for a moment that any will ensue. In your letter above referred to, you also say: "The papers transmitted to this  
office by you in the case of Catharine Dener," &c. It is not very likely that I would be entrusted with the transmis 
sion of papers in the case, if I were not clothed with the authority to act in the matter," and as an evidence (if it were  
wanting,) of my continued sufficiently authorized agency "in the matter," and that I am not a usurper, assuming the  
exercise of power not properly conferred upon me, I am instructed to present herewith, important additional evidence  
in support of the claim of Mrs. Dener.   

Upon an examination of the papers on file in this case, I considered the claim clearly established by the evidence ori 
ginally deduced, and found it impossible to imagine upon what ground the claim had been suspended by your predeces  
sor,--therefore, in the letter I had the honor to address you upon the subject, under date of 7th October last, I deemed  
it quite sufficient, at the request of the claimant, respectfully to solicit a re examination of the case, and to advert, briefly  
as I did, to a few of the most material parts of the evidence in support of the claim, not doubting for a moment, that the  
case would be taken up, as it were, de novo, without bias or prejudice growing out of the adverse decision of your  
predecessor, and receive that respectful, full and fair consideration and adjudication, demanded by its merits and legali 
ty, and a proper discharge of official duty, in which event, I as confidently predicted the prompt issuance of a pension  
certificate, and so advised the claimant. But instead of this, I have been met by a reiteration of the objections raised  
by your predecessor, the utter unreasonableness and untenableness of which I beg most respectfully to show. But be 
fore I enter upon the body of this case, I beg leave to make a few remarks, arising out of, and applicable to this and  
all similar cases.   

It was doubtless the intention of Congress in the enactment of pension laws, that the common law and equity rules,  
as to the sufficiency of evidence should prevail in their execution. The converse of this proposition, will not, I feel sure,  
be maintained by any intelligent and candid mind. It is quite too evident to admit of a doubt, that if Congress had  
intended that a higher standard of evidence should be required in the adjudication of this class of claims, than would be  
sufficient to satisfy the minds of an intelligent court and jury, they would have said so. If there is any tribunal in this  
country, either legislative, executive, governmental, departmental, or judicial, that is not, or which should not be bound  
by the common law and equity rules of evidence as established, and uniformly adhered to, in every judicial tribunal,  
in every government, making the least pretensions to freedom, from the days of Justinian to the present, I have  
yet to know it.   

I say, if there is any tribunal or authority in this land of boasted liberal laws, unknown, superior to, and disregardful  
of the common law of England, as applicable to the particular case in question, I should like to know it, and it is time  
the public should know it.   

Chief Justice Story says there is no such tribunal or authority.   

It is matter of judicial history that our ancestors brought with them from the mother country the common law of  
England, or at least so much of it as was adopted to their new condition, and that the same has been recognized, and  
adopted by the general, and all the State and territorial governments, with certain modifications. But what modi
fications may have been found necessary by our new state of things, and new forms of government, that branch of Eng
land's boasted system of jurisprudence, relating to evidence, especially the sufficiency of evidence, has been adopted  
unaltered and unmodified, in all its length and breadth, by the general and every State government, and considered of  
absolutely binding authority in every judicial tribunal in this broad republic. That degree of evidence which was suf  
ficient to carry conviction to the mind of a Littleton, a Coke, a Hale, a Bacon and a Mansfield, has ever been sufficient  
to satisfy the mind of a Marshall, a Kent, a Story and a Taney,--and will it not suffice for your mind? I trow it  
will! And if so, the result of the present case can no longer be doubtful.   

Apropos: Mr. Story, in one of his admirable works, after remarking generally, that the courts of the United States  
and of the several States, as well as the State legislatures and the Congress of the United States, are bound by the com  
mon law rules of evidence, proceeds to say, totidem verbis: "The general rules of law and evidence applicable to com  
mon trials, are interposed to prevent the party against the exercise of wanton and arbitrary power."   

In the case under consideration, it is claimed that George F. Dener of South Carolina, served as a lieutenant in the  
revolutionary war. In answer to this, in the report before me, you say: "The regulations require that the rank of a  
commissioned officer shall be established by the production of his commission, or of some other record, or documentary  
testimony," &c. You further say, in substance, that before a pension can be granted to claimant she must show by  
record evidence that her husband, served as a lieutenant," &c. If this is a governing regulation in your department,  
and I am to understand therefrom, that nothing short of record, or documentary evidence will be sufficient to establish  
a claim for services as an officer, the rule or regulation strikes at the very root, and is subversive of all the above named  
land marks of English and American jurisprudence. But I do not understand it. I have also carefully examined in  
vain, your published official regulations, for the enunciation of any such a rule. You say: "The rank of a commis  
sioned officer shall be established by the production of record evidence," &c.,--doubtless it would be "established by  
the production of record evidence," &c. But I do not thereby understand you, nor do I presume you would pretend  
to say, that parole evidence would not be sufficient to establish the same fact, in the absence of record evidence. It  
would not be within the prerogative of the secretary or any other public functionary to establish any such rule or re  
gulation. Such a rule or regulation, would be a species of executive legislation, not contemplated by Congress, and at  
variance with the true, intent and spirit of the pension laws. When Congress devolved upon the secretary, the duty  
of executing the pension laws, under such rules and regulations as he might prescribe, they did not expect him to adopt  
an arbitrary system of rules and regulations in regard to the character and degree of evidence, unknown, and un  
practiced in judicial tribunals, and calculated to defeat the objects and ends of those laws.   

They expected his rules and regulations to be merely ancillary and subordinate to the design of the laws, and be confined to the
Page 61

[Duplicate of image 54] 

2   

to the forms of application, modes of authenticating papers, &c. I say it was not the intention of Congress to confer upon the  secretary a power or authority to demolish every vestige of the law of evidence, and erect upon its ruins, a utopian  
superstructure, or standard of evidence, far above the reach and the comprehension of ordinary minds and capacities,  
like the laws of a certain ancient lawgiver and tyrant, who caused his laws to be written obscurely, and placed so high  
up in the air, that but few could reach, or understand them, and then punished his subjects for their violation.   

Distant claimants, upon reading the pension laws, very naturally conclude, that you will be satisfied with the same  
amount and degree of evidence that would be sufficient to establish similar claims in a court of law or equity, and go to  
work, and make out their claims accordingly, and when presented, they are told by you, that this will not do,--that a  
much greater amount of evidence is requisite, and such an amount and degree of evidence, as render the law, in many  
equally meritorious and just cases, a nullity, a species of tantalization and mockery. Thus injustice and injury is often  
done to honest claimants. But, whatever may be said, as to the existence or non existence of any such a rule, to the  
honor of your office, be it spoken, but little or no attention has been paid to it, for it comes within my knowl  
edge, that it is your constant practice to admit claims, and issue pension for services, in every grade of office,  
without the smallest particle of record or documentary evidence, and I can refer you, if need be, to many such  
cases, and several in which I have been personally interested as attorney.   

It is one of the proudest boasts of English liberty, secured by magna charta, extorted, it is true, by the Bar  
ons, from King John at Runny Meade, in the 13th century,--that the humblest citizen or subject, having a claim or  
demand against the government or King, may file his petition in the court of chancery (by what is called a  
petition of right) where the chancellor will administer right, as a matter of constitutional law, according to the  
rules of evidence as expounded by such luminaries of the English bar, as Lord Bacon, Archibald, Philips, and  
Starkie, to which I shall hereafter refer more particularly. And in all such cases, according to Chief Justice  
Blackstone, the chanceller, is rather the counsel for the claimant, than the advocate or defender of the govern  
ment or King. He does not stand Cerberus like, or sword in hand, as it were, at the gates of the treasury,  
but administers justice with a liberal hand, and is required even to give the claimant the benefit of all reasona  
ble doubts. If he errs, he errs on the side of liberality,--weekness and charity, if not absolute law and justice,  
and not on the side of oppression, power, and patronage. If such principles as these had governed in the inves  
tigation of Mrs. Dener's claim, it would not now be my humble duty to trouble you in this form,--instead of  
which, she would long ago have been in the enjoyment of that pittance which Congress evidently designed should  
be granted, without unnecessary delay, in all cases like the present.   

If you will now be pleased to accompany me through an examination of the evidence (and I promise to be as  
brief as practicable) on file, and apply thereto the principles, which, it has been seen, should govern your de  
cision in the case, the result cannot fail to be a certificate in favor of the claimant for her husband's two years  
services as lieutenant in the war of the revolution.   

Christiana Dener, declares that her husband George F. Dener, became a member of a light infantry corps in  
1776, and served as lieutenant of said corps, in the revolutionary war, twelve months previous to the surrender  
of Charleston, S. C., at which time he was taken prisoner, and detained in captivity twelve months--then es  
caped and served under Marion. Then, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company--became lieu  
tenant of said corps, and served therein as lieutenant from September 1782 to September 1783,--making in all, more  
than two years active service, as lieutenant in the war, besides twelve months' imprisonment in the hands  
of the enemy, the most humiliating and disagreeable of all situations, or services, to a brave and patriotic  
mind, ready to shed his blood in the cause of his country and of freedom. I need not stop to say what does  
not admit of a question, that a pension is as much due for the period of his imprisonment, as for the most ac  
ive, efficient service in the American ranks.   

Her declaration is fully corroborated, for all practical purposes, by John Cart, a revolutionary pensioner, who swears  
positively and unequivocally, of his own personal knowledge, that said Dener served not less than two years as an offi  
cer, (lieutenant) in the revolution. He says Dener was made a prisoner at the surrender of Charleston, and remained  
in captivity with the enemy, one year. Was afterwards, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company,  
commissioned lieutenant, and served in that capacity, as Mrs. Dener states. When he says Dener was in service "two  
years or more as lieutenant," he doubtless means that he was in active service two years or more, besides the twelve  
months' imprisonment, for that, in the language of that day, and in common parlance, was not considered service.   

Such scenes as the battles of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, imprisonment, escape, &c.,  
through which, it is said, Dener passed, are the best calculated of all others, to make a distinct and lasting impression  
upon the human mind, and such scenes as render it literally impossible they should be mistaken in their testimony so  
long as reason retains her seat,--and they are not only intelligent and respectable, but shown to be of the highest and  
most unimpeachable character for truth and veracity. Their testimony is also sufficiently corroborated by that of W.  
Nurse, Mrs. Gruber, Mrs Godfrey and Joseph Righton, revolutionary pensioners, and also that of John Stroble, Da  
vid Horlbeck and Edmund Cranston herewith transmitted, all of whom, in point of character for intelligence and respect  
ability, truth and veracity, have no superiors in South Carolina. It is the least likely thing under the sun, that all, or  
any one of the above named persons, have sworn falsely or incorrectly, in any essential particular. To attribute false  
hood, false swearing, perjury, if you please, (for that it would be,) to all, or to any one of these persons, in such a case,  
would shock the moral sense of all who know them. It is what South Carolinians and those who know them best could  
never be made to believe for a moment! Nay, their feelings would revolt at the bare suggestion of a proposition in  
volving the least degree of such an imputation. They have either sworn truly, or they have sworn falsely. If you  
are satisfied they have sworn the truth, you will admit this claim. If, on the contrary, you reject this claim, (which I  
do not, cannot believe,) you thereby declare in terms not be be misunderstood, that they have sworn falsely, and been  
guilty of perjury. That is the complexion to which it would come, and it could not be disguised! Are you prepared  
for this? No. And I know you will not be!   

Having said thus much upon the evidence as a whole, I will not occupy your time longer, by animadverting upon the  
same in detail, but leave you to that well considered, deliberate and thorough examination of the same, in all its parts  
and bearings, which I conceive, cannot fail to lead you to the same conclusion to which I have arrived, as to the legal 
ity of this claim, and next proceed to give the law, respecting the sufficiency of evidence, as applicable to this case;  
according to which, it will be seen, that the uncorroborated testimony of one of the above witnesses, say that of John  
Cart, who testifies, positively of his own knowledge, the said Dener, rendered at least two years service as lieutenant,  
is sufficient to establish this claim to two years service at least,--and when corroborated, as it is, by all the other wit  
nesses, facts and circumstances, testified to, the evidence becomes abundantly cumulative and strong, methinks, as  
"proofs of Holy Writ."
Page 62

[Duplicate of image 55]

3  

In Bacon's Abridgement, volume 2, page 597: "It is holden by my Lord Chief Justice Holt, that at common  
law it was not necessary in any case, that a proof of any matter of fact, should be made by more than one witness, and  that the single testimony of one credible witness was sufficient to prove any fact." And it is the constant practice of the  courts of equity in England, and in this country, to ground their decrees upon the testimony of a single witness. The  ecclesiastical courts of England were also compelled to observe these rules. Vide, the authority above referred to,  Archibald's Criminal Evidence, page 156-7. It is held, that in cases of treason and perjury, the testimony of two witnesses  is necessary, or one witness corroborating circumstances: "In all other cases one witness is sufficient."

See, also, 2d Hawk, 6, 46, 2; Fost, 233, where the same principles are maintained. Philips on Evidence, vol. 3,  
page 565, "one credible witness is sufficient even to convict of a crime, and a useless repetition of witnesses is dis countenanced by law. The Judge might by the civil law, in his discretion, stop the multiplication of witnesses to the  
same matter, and this is not an unusual exercise of discretion in our own courts." See, also, Wood's Civil Law, 317, "Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, page 324, also says, "that whatever was evidence at common law, is still good evi 
dence under the express constitutional and statutory provisions of the American government." You thus perceive,  
Sir, that upon these principles, if George Frederick Dener were upon his trial for treason or perjury, with the weight  
of evidence before you, he could be convicted, and, in England, drawn and quartered, and his head severed from his 
body, and placed at the disposal of the sovereign.  

Again, Starkie on Evidence, vol. 1, page 552; "the testimony of a single witness, where there is no ground for  
suspecting either his ability or his integrity, is a sufficient legal ground for belief; that it is strong enough to produce  
actual belief, every man's experience will vouch." Now, Sir, we have seen the integrity of these witnesses to be  
above suspicion; and as to their ability--they have detailed with sufficient particularity the facts and circumstances,  
which enabled them to know the truths to which they testified. Their ability to know the truths to which they have  
testified is as unquestionable as their integrity, and you cannot question the one without, at the same time, questioning  the other. Bouvier says, vol. 2, page 659, "when we are called upon to rely on the testimony of another, in order to  
form a judgment as to certain facts, we must be certain, 1st, that he knows the facts in question, and that he is not  mistaken; and, 2dly, that he is disposed to tell the truth, and has no desire to impose on those who are to form 
a  judgment on his testimony. The confidence, therefore, which we give to the witness must be considered, in the first  place, by his capacity or his organization, and, in the next, by the interest or motive which he has to tell or not to tell  
the truth. When the facts to which the witness testifies agree with the circumstances which are known to exist, he  becomes much more credible than when there is a contradiction in this respect. It is true," he says, "that, until im peached, one witness is as good as another, and that one witness is sufficient to establish a fact."  

Now let us apply the touch stone of these principles in weighing the evidence. The battle of Beaufort, Stono and  Savannah, surrender of Charleston, after a protracted siege, capture and imprisonment of Americans twelve months,  
are all matters of history. It is equally matter of fact, (I was about to say history,) that at the period of these scenes  
and incidents, there was in Charleston an independent infantry corps, called "German Fuseliers," and that George  
F. Dener was lieutenant of said corps from 1776 to his death, in 1795, and that said corps served in the Revolutionary  
war in the manner stated in Mrs. D.'s declaration, the following named persons having been pensioners for services in  
said corps, to wit: Mary Kelly, widow of John, Ann Cobia, widow of Nicholas, Franzinia Goelzinger, widow of  
Adam, and Mary Belser, widow of ---. Now was Mrs. Dener, and those who have testified in support of her  
claim, in position to know the facts to which they have sworn? They, (Mrs. D. and all,) were in exact position,  
for all the world, to see and to know the facts to which they have testified. They were all citizens of Charleston,  
where it is evident from the testimony, not less than two years service, (including the twelve months imprisonment,)  
was rendered by Dener, and being his neighbors and intimate acquaintances, could not possibly be mistaken. Mrs.  
Gruber and Mrs. Godfrey, as well as Mrs. D., were in position to witness, and to know his services and imprisonment  
which passed under their eyes in Charleston. The best possible evidence that the witnesses in this case were in posi 
tion to know the services performed by Dener, as testified to, is to be found in the fact, that they are, or have been,  
in receipt of pensions for their participation in those very services. All the evidence and circumstances of this case  
prove incontestibly that Dener was in a position to perform the services attributed to him. And if, instead of perform 
ing the services alleged, he had abandoned his post of duty, deserted, and acted cowardly, or tory like, would these  
brave and patriotic whigs have come forward, and conspire, at the price of perjury, to establish this claim? NO!  
Sir, they would ever afterwards have viewed him with scorn and contempt. Nay! They would ever afterwards have  execrated his very name. Thus, you see sir, that the claim of Christiana Dener to a pension for two years (not less)  services, as Lieutenant in the Revolutionary war, by her husband, George F. Dener, cannot be rejected, without a  
disregard of every feeling of gratitude, every principle of law, equity, reason, and justice--every rational presumption,  
and all the known principles of human nature and action.  

It will also brand these several witnesses with the crime of perjury, as far as your action can fix such a stigma; a  
result too monstrous and painful to be contemplated, or to be expected from an impartial mind, conscious of its own  rectitude, and, therefore, not ready to suspect others capable of crime before High Heaven, and that, too, in a matter  
in which they can have no real or imaginary interest or motive to misrepresent, or even exaggerate in the smallest de 
gree. I have the honor to be, &c.,  
M. THOMPSON,  
Attorney, &c.
Page 63

Edmund Cranston
[illegible] 1802
showing that [illegible] was
not at the taking of
Savannah
Page 64

Charleston June 21st 1852

Col George Little 
Raleigh No Ca

Dear Sir:  Your favour [favor] of the 14th enclosing 
the Commsrs. Official Report and Col Thompsons letter is 
received and the Report returned as desired.  The Commsr. 
seems to labour [labor] under a mistake induced doubtless from 
his studying the case of Col Sass more than the one 
before him, and from the mistake of Mr. Cantwell the one 
who first undertook it, in trying to prove that Dener was 
one of the officers at the siege of Savannah. This is not 
a fact, for it appears from the records that Shepperd was 
Capt, Danl Strobel first Lieut & Jacob Sass 2nd &c 
also sixty one privates were all that were present at that 
siege, many of the other members did not go, among whom 
was Dener.  The Commsr. asserts "that he is satisfied 
there is not the slightest proof for the assumption that 
Dener served as a Lieut of the German Fusiliers previous to 
the fall of Charleston (May 12th 1780)."  It can be proved 
from the records in the Rule Book that Dener was Lieut 
from 1779 to 1786.  It is known that Capt Shepperd was 
killed at the siege of Savannah 9th October 1779, and when 
the Company returned to Charleston in the same year, an 
election took place for officers, when Danl Strobel 1st Lieut at 
the siege was elected Capt. Geo F Dener 1st & Jacob Sass 
2nd Lieuts &c Col Thompson has a Rule Book, and can 
see the promotion of Sass which the Commsr so much enlarges
Page 65

upon.  The Commr. again asserts "If Dener was an 
Officer of that Company he was elected after the evacu
ation of Charleston in December 1782, on its reorganization,  
but as such, could have rendered no service would would entitle 
his widow to a Pension."  The records referred to in the Rule 
Book proves he was Lieut form 1779 to 1786.  The Commr.
again asserts "that there is evidence in existance [existence] which 
will test the accuracy of the averment that Dener served  
one year as a Lieut prior to the surrender of Charleston 
12 May 1780."  Here we are wanting, because Dener 
was elected Lieut somewhere in [illegible] December 1779 
only about 6 months.  I am not acquainted with the 
nature of the Pension Laws, but if they require one years 
service as Lieut previous to the surrender in May 1780 we 
are defeated; such not being the fact.  If there are 
any affidavits sent on by Cantwell deemed prejudicial 
to the case, they must be attributed to the ignorance 
of the Parities in taking common report and imperfect 
recollections for facts.  The picture referred to in the 
Commr. Report proves clearly that Dener was not 
at the siege of Savannah, and that after the death of 
Capt Shepperd an election was held in the same year 
for officers, the particulars of which are already stated. 
As you are a lawyer and I am not, I will take 
any advice suggested

Very Respectfully 
Your Obt Servant

Edmund Cranston
Page 66

[illegible] I have written Capt Jno Strobel to give me an
account of the other engagement the Company was in, we
have not a Col Sass to do it for us; as soon as he sends
it I will forward immediately
Page 67

Washington Aug 27 1853
Hon Jas E. Heath
Commis of Pensions

Dear Sir

The claim
of Dener of So. Car. has
been in the hand of Col
Niles for examination,
some six or eight Months.
He would Willingly
take up, & dispose of the 
Claim if authorized and 
advised to do so by you.

I have the honor &c
M Thompson
Atty for Dener
Page 68

Brief in the case of Christiana Dener, widow of George F. 
Charleston County and State of S. Carolina
act
July 7. 1838 &. &.
=====================================
Claim, (original, or for increase."
Proof exhibited, (if original.)

Is it documentary, traditionary, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Admitted after consulting the Commissioner
per case of Jacob Sass, Mary Belser, Ann
Colia, John Cart, William Purse, Elizabeth
Righton  S. Carolina   [illegible]

(If for increase.)
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?

Name and residence of Agent
M. Thompson
Present

Examining Clerk.
[illegible]
Page 69

Off at Court Claims
Washington City Dec 18, 1856

Sir,

Mrs Christiana Dener, a pensioner under the
act of July 7 ('38, Mar 3 '43, &c, at the rate of $236 65/100
per ann, is claiming before this Court, pension at
the rate of $320. She resides in Charleston So. Car.

Will you have the kindness to give me a
copy of the decision in her case, or any other paper
showing the time allowed for by the Department, and
also to state whether the allowance was made
upon the evidence produced by her, or upon other
evidence, in whole or part, in your office

Very Respectfully
Your Obd Servt
Jno Delle Sherson
Deputy Solicitor

Geo. C. Whiting Esq
Com Pensions,
Page 70

Washington Decr 26 1851

Hon James E. Heath

Sir

Mrs. Christiana Dener 
of Charleston S.C. & those who 
testify in support of her 
claim, are my constituents and 
from my personal knowledge of 
them all, I take great pleasure 
in confirming all that her attorney 
Col. M. Thompson has said in 
his accompanying argument in the 
case as it regards their character 
for intelligence & respectability, truth 
& veracity. And, I have every 
reason to believe from the best 
information I have been able to 
obtain, & from the general repu
Page 71

tation of George F Dener, that 
he served in the War of the 
Revolution in the manner alleged 
& that Mrs. Dener is entitled 
to the pension claimed, and few 
things would gratify me and 
her numerous friends and acqu
aintances more than to know 
that she had obtained the 
amount claimed.

Your attention in person 
at your earliest convenience 
will very much oblige

Dear Sir Your Obt
Servt

William Aiken
Representative of the 
6th Congressional District 
of South Carolina.
Page 72

Washington City 
August 22d 1851

Sir 

I have the honor to request 
your earliest attention to the 
accompanying letter of Maj. 
George Little & case to which 
it relates.

The papers I 
understand exhibit a very 
clear & valid claim, and 
having been on file some 
tme & the claimant being 
in the most indigent circum
stances, if would be an act 
of charity, as well as justice, 
to pass upon it as early 
as possible

Most respectfully 
Your obt 
Servt

M Thompson

To
Hon J. L. Edwards
Commissr of Pensions
Page 73

Washington City 
August 22 1852

Dear Sir

Some months ago I received 
a letter from Mrs Christiana Dener of 
Charleston SoCa authorizing me to 
attend to her claim for a pension 
as the widow of Georg Frd. Dener, an 
officer of the Revolutionary War, from 
the State of So Carolina, filed under 
act of 7th July 1838 and subsequent 
acts. You will please apply 
at the office and examine the 
papers in support of her claim 
and ascertain what further 
proof, if any, is required.

I am yours very
respectfully 

Geo. Little

M Thompson Esqr
Attorney at Law
Washington City
Page 74

Washington June 1st 1852

Col Niles 

Dear Sir

The claim of 
Christiana Dener of So. Car. 
whose papers are in your 
hands for official action was 
suspended for many years 
untill [until] the 15th Decr. last.  I 
filed important & to my mind conc
lusive additional evidence  
requesting on behalf of [struck out: the
claim] said Mrs. Dener (who 
is now very old & feeble) a 
reexamination of her said 
claim, since which, five & 
[struck out: months have] a half months 
have elapsed & yet no 
adjudication of the claim, and 
this extraordinary delay too, in the
Page 75

2

face of published rules to the 
effect, that such claims are (as 
they certainly should be) adjudicated 
in the order in which they are 
filed & the fact that claims of 
like character are daily being 
admitted & acted upon by your 
dept. which were presented 
more than two months after 
the presentation of the Dener case.

I do not understand this. 
While I do not ask exceptions 
to be made in my favor, I have 
a right to claim, on behalf 
of those I represent, that 
exceptions to rules shall not 
be made against them & me.

You will find on file in 
this case, a letter from the 
claimant stating that a certain 
other agent (having no doubt
Page 76

3

seen my argument in the 
case & become satisfied of the 
legality & justice of the claim) 
called upon her & stated that 
he recovered claims of like 
character upon a far less 
weight of evidence than 
appears on file in that case 
& that within a much shorter 
space of time & solicited her 
to employ him to my exclus
ion. She has also been 
tampered with by other agents 
who have represented to her 
that they could recover for 
her within much less time.

By [words struck out] irregular action 
& unjust delay therefore of 
your office, there is danger 
that Mrs Dener may become
Page 77

4

so impatient as to yield to the 
proposals of other agents (who 
represent themselves as more 
fortunate than myself) [struck out: to]
& supercede me & deprive me 
of the just fruits of my 
labor [struck out: in the] for the prosecution 
of this claim.  I therefore 
ask as a favor, what under 
the established rules of your 
dept. I might demand as a 
right that you will without 
further unnecessary delay 
act (or allow to be acted) upon 
this claim.  I much 
prefer that you should act upon 
the claim, it being in you hands 
relying as I do implicitly, upon 
your fidelity, ability [struck out: and] enlightened 
& uniform conscientious discharge 
of your official duties.  Yours &c
M Thompson
Page 78

Oct 27. 1852
Washington
Oct 21/52

M Thompson

 Rel: to the case of
Catharine Dener
Oct. 27 /52

Cole

Refd to Comr of Pensions
for a Report

Dept Int    ⎬
Oct 27/52⎬
Page 79

Washington Oct 21st 1852

Hon. A. H. H. Stuart
Sec'y of the Interior 

Sir

Christiana Dener, widow 
of George F. Dener, of South 
Carolina, was recently 
placed on the South Carolina 
roll at $226 65/100 per annum, being 
for 17 months service as lieut. 
& 7 months as private in the 
G. F. Company.  By reference 
to the evidence in the case, adverted 
to & underlined on page 2 & 3 of 
my printed letter of 15th Novr. 1851. to 
the Commissioner of Pensions,
herewith enclosed, you will 
find that said Dener rendered 
not less than two years active
Page 80

2

service as lieutenant besides 
twelve months captivity with 
the enemy, for which he 
is equally entitled to a pension.

The reason (if any be had)
why Dener was not admitted 
for full two years services 
as lieut. does not appear 
upon the record & I have 
been utterly at a loss to imagine 
one.  Upon an examination 
of the evidence, you will find it 
as clear & conclusive, that 
he served, as I have above 
stated, at that the served an 
[illegible].  The Commiss'r. 
has admitted & will admit (for 
it cannot be questioned) that 
said Dener became a member 
of said Company in 1776 &
Page 81

3

served there in the very  
war actively (except the 12 mos. 
imprisonment with the enemy) from 
that time to the close of the war 
or (as shown by the evidence) untill [until] 
Sept. 1783.  He has 
admitted also, what cannot 
be denied, that he became a 
lieut. of said company towards 
the close of the year 1779 
& that from & after the close 
of the year 1779 he served 
17 months as lieut.  How 
he could look at the evidence & 
stop short of two years as 
lieut., will strike you with 
profound astonishment no doubt 
& what function of time 
he stops & for what reason 
(if reason he has) for stopping
Page 82

4

his lieutenancy at just 17 mos. 
in the face of the evidence, requ
ires an explanation which 
he alone can give.

Take the Commissioner's very 
proper admission that Dener 
became lieut towards the close 
of the year 1779 & the evidence 
that he continued to serve in 
that capacity in the War from 
that time untill [until] the surrender 
of Charleston, his twelve 
months captivity immediately 
succeeding that surrender, his 
escape, service in Marion's 
camp, return to Charleston, 
reorganization of the said 
G. F. Company, & his service 
therein in the War as lieut. 
from Sept 1782 to Sept. 1783 &
Page 83

5

how 17 months alone as 
lieut & not over thirty months 
as lieut. can be made surp 
asses all my powers of 
arithmetical or other calcu
nation.  If there is a 
problem in [illegible] more 
difficult to solve than that 
by which the Commis'r. arrived 
at the conclusion which he 
did in the face of such 
evidence as he had before 
him, I have never yet 
fount it.

I have the honor to 
be your obt serv't

M Thompson

P.S. If, as it has been admitted 
& as the evidence shows, he was
Page 84

6

lieut. in service at the surrender 
of Charleston & after his impri
sonment, escape & service with 
Marion he returned, & became 
lieut. again upon the reorgani
zation of the Company in Sept. 
1782. It is but just and 
equitable to treat him, for 
all the purposes of this claim, 
as having been continuously 
in service as lieut. from 1779 
to Sept. 1782. If he was 
not a lieut, & constantly in 
service [text illegible page appears folded] 
1779, to 1782 it was simply 
because the enemy captured 
& compelled the company to 
disband.  This is shown 
by the fact, that immediately 
after the evacuation of the city
Page 85

7

by the British, he returned, 
reorganized & again became 
lieut. of the company, and 
served another year in 
the War in that rank

He is certainly entitled to 
more respect for escaping as 
he did & joining Marion & 
continuing to fight than if 
he had accepted a parole, as 
many others did.
Page 86

Charleston So Ca
15 April 1847

Sir:  I respectfully recall to your attention the case of 
Mrs. Christiana Dener, widow of Geo F. Dener who 
served as an officer and a private in the "German Fusiliers"
of Charleston, So. Ca. militia, during the War of the Revolution.

A letter from the Department of 3, Sep. 1839, states 
"that documentary evidence would be required 
to establish the allegations that he held a Lieute
nants Commission."

I respectfully submit, that the department has made 
no decision on her claim as the widow of a private 
for 12 months service, which I hereby now 
make.

In order to procure such a decision I submit 
a synopsis of the proof-on file in the department.

3 Sep 1838, John Cart a revolutionary pensioner, swears he 
served from 1779 to 1783, and that he believes 
two years of this was as officer and in the G. Fusiliers
[note in left margin: from his personal knowledge]

19 July 1839, John Cart makes another affidvt. in relation to the 
treatment of prisoners after the surrender of 
Charleston in 1780 & says Dener was among them

1 Nov 1838, Joseph Righton a Revolutionary pensioner 
swears to 12 months service. --
[note: [illegible] & also to 12 mos. service as prisoner.]

30 Oct 1838, William Purse, a Revolutionary pensioner 
sustains Rightons statement--

1 Nov 1838 Mrs Gruber and Mrs Godfrey also Revolty 
pensioners corroborate the statement of 
Righton.

I rest the case here, and respectfully 
solicit
Page 87

 solicit a decision.  I do so also upon 
the ground that, two gentlemen strangers 
in our City lately called upon Mrs. Dener 
in relation to this matter, and at whose request 
she signed some papers.  I appeal to 
the justice of the Commissioner, and to the 
rights of agents, to say, if no new evidence 
be adduced, surely I am entitled to the 
benefit of a decision brought about 
by proofs procured by me at considerable 
expense and trouble.

I remain Sir 
with [illegible]
Your Mt. Obt. Srvt.

P Cantwell

To 
James L. Edwards Esqr.
Commissioner of Pensions
War Department }
Washington City }
Page 88

Department of the Interior 
Washington Nov 30th 1853

Sir:

Your decision in the case of 
Christiana Dener, widow of George F. Dener, 
claiming increase of Pension, has been affirmed, 
and the papers accompanying your report, 
herewith returned to your office.

I am, very respectfully,
Your obedient Servant

K McClellan
Secretary 

The Hon.
Loren P Waldo }
Commissioner }
of Pensions }
Page 89

Wahington Feby 25th 1852

Hon. Jas. E. Heath 

Sir

I beg leave herewith 
to inclose [enclose] a letter from Edmund 
Cranston Esq. the grandson of 
Mrs. Christiana Dener widow 
of Lieut George F. Dener decd.
of So. Car. exhibiting a well 
found impatience at the very 
long suspension of that claim 
& the assurance, which you will 
see of other agents, and competent 
judges, that this claim (as I have 
hitherto contended especially 
in my feeble argument of 
15th Decr. last) is supported 
by a far greater amount of
Page 90

evidence than is to be found in 
more fortunate cases in other 
hands.

It is confidently hoped 
that your earliest personal 
attention will relieve me 
from the further importunities 
of the claimants & meet out 
long deferred justice to Mrs. 
Dener.

I have the honor to 
be most resptfy 

M Thompson
Atty
Page 91

Washington City 
June 2 1847

J. L Edwards Esqr
Commr of Pensions

Sir

P. Cantwell Esqr of Charleston So Ca writes to 
me "In 1838-39 I laid the claim of Christiana 
the widow of George Fredr Dener before the 
Commsr of Pensions, for a pension due her as the 
widow of an officer & a private.  The claim for his 
services as an officer was rejected, because these 
services were not proved by documentary evidence 
but in regard to the claim for services as a private 
which were fully proved I never recd any decision.
About ago I renewed my application to the 
Commissioner for a decision on this point. No 
reply has been given. I mention this thing 
to you because two gentlemen called lately 
upon Mrs Dener in relation to this matter 
and it is not right that I would lose my 
commission for an examination you will 
learn I have no doubt these gentlemen 
have not been able to produce any new 
testimony in addition to what I forwarded 
in support of the claim.

Will you be so good as to direct an examina
tion of the matter & inform me of the result.

Very respfy Yr obt Svt

Chs. Nourse
Page 92

Washington City DC
August 31st 1848

Sir

Capt. P. Cantwell of the City of Charleston S.C. writes me 
as follows:

"Mrs Christiana Dener, widow of Geo. F. Dener 
who served in the militia of S. Ca. during the war of the 
Revolution, to wit: 12 months as a private, and 12 months 
as a Lieut. I admit that I am unable to prove by 
documentary evidence the service performed as a commissioned 
officer, but I do assert that I have abundantly proved his 
service as a private for 12 months.  Will you ask the 
Commissioner to make a decision upon the service as a 
private."

Will you have the goodness to comply with Mr 
Cantwells request, and notify me of the result at your 
earliest convenience?

Respectfully &c

George Mackay
On F Street

J. L. Edwards Esqr }
Comsr. of Pensions }
Page 93

(Copy)

War Department,
Pension Office 
June 29 1839

Sir

I have examined the claim of Mrs Ann Cobia widow of 
Nicholas Cobia, and have caused her name to be placed on 
the pension roll under the act of July 4' 1836.

The claim of Franzinia Goetzinger widow of Adam 
and of Mrs Mary Belser widow of Christiana have been placed
in our files. The persons above named were members 
of an independent company raised in Charleston, called 
the German Fusileers.  The widows of Goetzinger 
and Belser have not been able to describe their hus
bands services as our rules require. 
Nicholas Cobia in his declaration gave a very 
particular account of his actual services which 
amounted to 14 months.

Jacob Sass a pensioner was the Lieut of this Company, 
and in his application he claimed for a service of 14 
months and 24 days and was allowed that amount. 
The fact being established that Goetzinger 
and Belser belonged to said Company, the department 
is willing to make the same allowance for their service 
as was made to Cobia. Goetzinger however it is 
said performed other important services subsequent to 
the fall of Charleston-that after being a prisoner 9 mon
ths he joined Gen. Marion under whom he served as commissary 
and forage master till he returned to Charleston in Dec. 1782-
when he again joined his old company of Fusileers in which he 
served till Sept. 1783, of this service however, no satisfactory proof
Page 94

has been offered.  He was married it seems Dec 26, 1782, just 
after the evacuation of Charleston by the British, it is matter of 
great doubt whether he performed any services against the enemy 
after his marriage, altho he might still have been a member 
of the German Fusileers.  Unless service subsequent to the 
marriage be clearly shown the widow's claim cannot be 
allowed under the act of July 4' 1836.  It is very probable that 
the records in the Comptroller Generals office may furnish 
some proof of her husbands service under Gen Marion.

On reflection, I have thought proper to issue a certificate 
for Mrs Belser, as she claims only for service perform
ed in the German Fusileer Company.
Patrick Cantwell Esqr | I am respectfully 
Charleston, | your obt servt
S Carolina | (signed) J L Edwards
_______________________________________________________
Mary Kelly widow of John Kelly of German Fusileers was allowed 
[word struck out] pension certificate issued  1840 $40 = pan
Ann Cobia, widow of Nicholas, same company, 1839, 46.=66/100
Franzinia Goetzinger, widow of Adam, Do - Do, 1839 46 - 66/100
Mary Belser, widow of Christiana Do Do " 46. 66/100

See Record of these Certificates and the proof in relation thereto, 
in the Pension Office. They are all on the South Carolina roll.
Page 95

Washington City D.C. Sept. 15th 1853
Hon L. P.  Waldo
Com. of Pensions

Sir

I think the case
of Christiana Dener of S.o Car.
has been overlooked.

In regular order it
would undoubtedly have
been acted upon and
her pension granted for
her husband, George F.
Dener services in the
War of the revolution - 
The principal points
Page 96

relied upon confidently for
an increase will be found
underlined in my [illegible]
argument, (a copy of which
herewith inclosed) and
in a Manuscript 
supplemental argument of a
date subsequent thereto
long since placed on file
with the papers in the
Case.

I have the honor
to be &c.
M Thompson
Atty for Dever
Page 97

Washington Oct 7. 1851
Hon. James E. Heath
Sir
The claim of Christiana Dener Widow of George F Dener decd of South Carolina has been pending in your office, some dozen years the improper, rejection of which by Your predecessor in office, will, I am sure, satisfactorily appear to your mind by reference to the file in the case. - There will be found the positive testimony of John Cart a revolutionary pensioner, that saw Dener served as an officer
Page 98

(Lieut. he thinks, as claimed,) two or more years, & that Dener Was Lieut at the surrender of
Charleston S. C. &C

Wm Nurse, a revolutionary pensioner Was acquainted with said Dener during the Revolution; Knew he wore the uniform & fully believes be served as Lieut 12 months in the revolutionary War

Mrs. Gruber, a revolutionary pensioner knew saw Dener as an officer (Lieut she thinks) for one
year, perhaps two during the war of
the revolution

Mrs. Godfrey & Joseph
Page 99

Brighton, Revolutionary pensioners, fully confirm the foregoing

Enough in all conscience, it would seem to establish her claim

I herewith inclose a letter from Col Geo. Little, Marshall of N. C. from which you Will see Mrs Dener is very old & has in the possession of her grandson a full length portrait of said Dener, a circumstance entitled to considerable weight

The absence of Record evidence is satisfactorily accounted for by the destruction of the company rolls of that day
Page 100

Your earliest attention
to this much too long deferred
Claim.  Will, I feel sure.
result in the prompt admission
of the same, & this
gladden the heart of
this most estimable old
lady

I have the honor
to be most respectfully
your obt servt
M.Thompson
Page 101

Commissioners Room No 18 .
Mr Davidge will please examine the papers sent to
him herewith from W Thompson & after the examination I will
confer with him
J E Heath
Page 102

L. P. Waldo Esq
Commissioner of Pensions

Dear Sir

Therewith send you
the application of Mrs Christiana Dener for
Bounty Land under the act of 3rd March 1855

Will you please file the same in
your office and acknowledge the receipt
thereof

Yours Re[illegible]
W B Fickling
Atty at Law
Charleston South Carolina}
4th June 1855 -                        }
Page 103

[illegible]

PAID  Pri [illegible]
20

[postal stamp]
CHARLESTON
AUG
19
S.C.
Chas: J Nourse. Esq
hourse E
Washington
______D. C.

Aug 21  47
A[illegible] Us
Christiana Dener
Page 104

Charleston So Ca
19 August 1847

Charles J Nourse Esq
Washington City 

Sir,

The communication of the Department
in relation to the claim of Mrs Christiana Dever widow of
Geo. F. Dener who served as a private for 12 months in  the German Fusileers during the war of the Revolution, of June 4"
1847 is before me, - The Department requires information
as to the organization and liabilities of service of that
Company -  In answer thereto I  herewith transment 
the copy of a letter written to me by the Commission
of pensions dated June 1839, which is so conclusive
on the point, that I believe I may respectfully
hope that I will give the required information
and obtain a pension certificate for Mr C. Dener 
for 12 months service, the authenticity of the
letter may of course be verified at the office

I am yours
very respectfuly
your obt servt
P. Cantwell
Page 105

Raleigh 25 July 1837
Dear Sir
Much to my gratification on my return home yesterday I find the enclosed power from of attorney from Mrs. Christiana Dener at Charleston by which it appear she is still living and as I am informed in eager expectation of her pension.-

It was enclosed to me by her grandson a gentleman of high respectability who informed me, that a Mr. Cantwell of Wilmington NC had had something to do with it a year since - but that all authority is now residing in me.-- The grandson writes me there is a Revolutionary soldier named Wm
Muckanfuss, 96 years old who had served with Dener and probably his deposition may avail a good deal. - I wish you to examine her papers forthwith and if you think Muckenfuss's deposition would aid  inform me and I will obtain it: Mrs. Dener is now very old, had no child and you must be urgent and active in this case. It will pay by will should it pass and hereto
Page 106

have a favorable report for you
say soon-- The grandson has in his
possession a full portrait of his grand
father Dener taken at the time
he was an officer, with his full
uniform, epaulettes,  and all- This
should be  rather[illegible] evidance
to produce as to his having been
an officer, let it [illegible]
evidence of this could be obtained
so as to make it till at the office
Yours vy truly
Geo Little

M Thompson [illegible]
Washington City

Geo Little [illegible]
July 25th 1857
                    [illegible]
Awsd   11 Aug
Dever Claim

Wait
----
.
in
Ⓧ
in
11
℗
Page 107

House Reps   [illegible]
Washington Sept 8 1830

Sir

Will you have the kindness
to cause to be reported to me the
present condition of the pension
Claim of Christiana Dener,
the widow of George F Dener for
Revolutionary services. The
case was commenced before
the Department, if I mistake
not by Majr George Little of
N.C. and  claim made under
Act of 1838 & Subsequent acts
Mrs  Dener is of Charleston
SC. . 
I have the honor to be
Your Obt Servt
D Wallace

Hon J L Edwards