Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 1248, Lemuel Brooks, Conn.
Page 1

SERVICE
Conn
Brooks, Lemuel
Hannah
NUMBER
R. 1248
Page 2

V2954
Page 3

State of Connecticut
Town of Norwalk

On this 22 day of November in the year of our Lord on thousand eight hundred and thirty seven personally appeared before me Clark Bissell one of the Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut Hannah Brooks a resident of the town of Norwalk in the County of Fairfield and state of Connecticut aged ninety two years. [illegible] first day of this present month November in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty seven who being first duly sworn according to law doth on her oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of a pension made by the act of Congress passed July fourth in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six. That she is the widow of Samuel Bissell deceased who was an assistant or deputy Commisary in the revolutionary war for the term of about two years to wit seventy seven and seventy eight and who also served in the revolutionary war as a sergeant in Captain Smiths Company from the conclusion of the year seventeen hundred and eighty until the the close of the war and I believe that he served about one year as a private in Captain Raymonds Company prior to his service in Captain Smith Com
Page 4

pany She further declares that she was married in the month [strike out "day"] of September in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty four and that her husband the aforesaid Lemuel Brooks died in the month of October in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and fifteen and that she has remained a widow ever since that period as will more fully appear by reference to the for [illegible - obscured] She further declares that the services of [illegible - obscured] deputy or assistant commissar aforesaid [illegible - obscured] Daniels guys as commissary and [illegible - obscured] orders that at the time her husband [illegible - obscured] the service he resided in then the town [illegible] Norwalk [illegible] county of Fairfield and state of Connecticut he was drafted think into Captain Smith Company.
Hannah Brooks
Sworn before me Clark Bissell a Judge of the Superior Court
State of Connecticut Fairfield County ss
This may certify that Hannah Brooks who signed the above declaration is well known to me and that she is a person of credibility
Clark Bissell a Judge of the Superior Court
and I do hereby further certify that the
Page 5

said Hannah Brooks by reason of her advanced age and bodily infirmity is unable to attend court.
Clark Bissell a Judge of the Superior Cort
State of Connecticut
Fairfield County ss
I Thomas R Osborne clerk of the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut within and for said County of Fairfield do hereby certify that the Honorable Clark Bissell is one of the Judges of said Superior Court and that I am well acquainted with his hand writing and verily believe that all the signatures to the foregoing certificates purporting to be his are genuine and I do therefore certify that full faith and credit is due and ought to be given to the foregoing certificate of the said Clark Bissell as such Judge. Given under my hand and the seal of said Superior Court in Fairfield this 22d day of November AD 18[illegible]
Thomas B Osborne clerk
Page 6

State of Connecticut County of Fairfield Town of Norwalk Thomas Brooks of the town of Norwalk County of Fairfield and State of Connecticut being duly sworn do depose and say that I was born according to the family records which was in my father's own hand writing which I have since copyed [copied] into my own family records  agreeable to which was January 22 AD 1767 from which I have ever [illegible] my age that makes me in my twenty forth year that my yonger [younger] days was imployed [employed] in different voyages on the water frequently with my father Leml Brooks and I further say that I make this deposition in behalf of my mother Hannah Brooks whose maiden name was Raymond and was married to Samuel Brooks my father about the year of AD 1764 more particular reference might be obtained from town records [illegible strike through] on which the whole family is [illegible] consisting of ten children only three of which is living two daughters one in South Carilina [Carolina] the other in New Haven Connecticut and the only son living in Norwalk. My father died in the year AD 1815. I think in October. I know that my mother has lived a widow ever since my fathers death and that she now remains a widow and accounts her age to be ninety two the [illegible] month and now resides in Norwalk in the State of Connecticut and has always resided in Norwalk except at that [illegible with my brothers while living in other parts but made Norwalk his permanent residence I have also been informed that my father Lemuel Brooks native place was Stratford in Connecticut and that he came to Norwalk about two years before his marriage with my mother to Norwalk about two years before his marriage with my mother who was Hannah Raymond before marriage he then settled at Norwalk and made it his residence  he was a strong advocate for the liberty of America his occupation was Uppon the tease and was captured Sept 5 AD 1775 on his return voyage from the West Indies in sight of Block Island by a tender belonging and the [illegible] man o war Capt Wallace and Caryed into Rhode Island from thence was ordered to follow a fleet to Boston but [illegible] of his intending to make his escape from the fleet he was taken out of his [illegible] put on board a man o war and caryed [illegible] was nearly two months held a prisner [prisoner] when he made his escape arriving home late in November in [illegible] after obtained a commission under the United States government inlisted [enlisted] a [illegible] took command for [illegible]
Page 7

fitted out at Newtown in Connecticut Made a Course & was (illegible) in by the (illegible) & finding his (illegible) in had then Higg A. Carvey her maiden name & most of his (illegible) leaving him he also gave her up & his owners he returned home was employed in carrying troops from Norwalk & New York until the place was surrendered to the British early in the year seventeen hundred & seventy seven he served as Supply Company under Daniel Gray as forwarding Company of provision to the troops on the lines. I believe about two years some time in the year of AD 1779 there was an order from (illegible) that all able bodied men exempt from the militia should be embodied into Company. & (illegible) themselves & stand ready to march at notice which was Cald (illegible) or (illegible). Eliakin Smith was appointed Captain of the Company my father Lemuel Brooks was Chosen & served as Serjeant & as such led the Company to Stannage in Connecticut at the town the British made a sally on that place he was in town when Danbury Fairfield & Norwalk was invaded was one drafted to go to Stamford to join a Regiment I think was commanded by Col (illegible) while General Waterbury was comadant at Horse Neck which was in the year AD 1780 I then continued in the station of sergeant until the year of AD 1788
Lemuel Brooks

Fairfield County Ss. Norwalk November 22d AD 1887 Personally appears Lemuel Brooks and made solemn oath that the above deposition is true before me Noah Wilcox Justice of Peace

I certify that the above deponent who who has subscribed the above deposition is personally known to me to be a man of truth and veracity.
Noah Wilcox Justice of Peace

I further certify that on the 23rd day of November AD 1837 by actual & personal examination of books in the hands of executor of Lemuel Brooks I found a charge against William Seymour Commandant of Artillary in
Page 8

his own hand writing to wit "March 23d 1778 To half my wages in the Artillery service one month 27 days £4"1"6 Lawful"
Noah Wilcox Justice of Peace
State of Connecticut}
Fairfield County} ss.
I Thomas B Osborne Clerk of the County Court within and for the County of Fairfield in the State of Connecticut do hereby certify that Noah Wilcox Esquire is now and at the dates of the foregoing Certificates was, a Justice of the Peace for sd Fairfield County duly commissioned and duly authorized to administer oath and take Depositions and that I am acquainted with the hand writing of the said Noah Wilcox, Esquire & verily believe that all the signatures to the foregoing Certificates, purporting to be his, are genuine.  Given under my hand and the Seal of said County Court in Fairfield this 26th day of November AD 1837.
Thomas B Osborne Clerk

2954
Hannah Brooks
widow of Lemuel
Con.
Page 9

State of Connecticut
County of New Haven

Be it Remembered, that on this day of July 1853, I Ann Miller aged seventy seven years a resident of the City, town and County of New Haven, Connecticut, do make known and and [sic] declare that I am the daughter and heir at law to Hannah Brooks Who was the wife and widow of Lemuel Brooks late of Norwalk in this State. Who served two years in the Revolutionary War as a Courrier- Say in the forces raised by the State of Connecticut, and that he and his said wife married on the 19th day of September 1764 and that his said wife died on the 11th day of November 1841, that she made an application in her lifetime for a pension which was not granted for want of the necessary proof as claimed. Now therefore the true intent of all this is to qualify and irrevocably appoint and empower Wilson H. Clark of New Haven County in the city and town of New Haven Connecticut, as my true and lawful attorney to investigate, substantiate, demand and receive what may be due me as heir aforesaid and to say and do all things as amply as I might do. Hereby satisfying everything said or done by my said attorney in virtue hereof. Also revoking all
Page 10

Powers of Attorney or the authority previously given for any such purposes.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year above written.
Attest
Birdsey Brooks                   Ann Miller
Goe. Lindley
Sworn, subscribed to and acknowledged before me the day and year above named.

Geo. Lindley
Notary Public
Page 11

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
July 22, 1931

Nelle. B Stull                   Rev.& 1812 Wars Section
428 Third Street              AWF
Elyria, Ohio.

Dear Madam:
You are advised that it appears from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim, R. 1248, that Lemuel Brooks was a native of Stratford, Connecticut, date of his birth not given.
He married September 9, 1784, Hannah Raymond, who was born November 21, 1745. He died in October 1816.
His widow, Hannah, applied for pension, November 22, 1837, then a resident of Norwalk, Fairfield County, Connecticut.
It is alleged in the claim that Lemuel Brooks, who was a resident of Norwalk, Connecticut, at the commencement of the Revolution, was a seafaring man and while on a return voyage from the West Indies, was captured off Block Island, September 5, 1775, by the man-of-war "Rose" conveyed to Halifax, after two months of imprisonment, made his escape and returned home. He took command of a privateer at New Haven, in which he made on cruise. During 1777 and 1778, he served as Assistant of Deputy Commissary under Commissary Daniel Gray, also during 1780 served as a private in Captain Uriah Raymond's Company, and during 1781 as sergeant in Captain Eliakim Smith's Company on the alarm list, and was in service when Danbury, Fairfield and Norwalk were invaded.
The claim was not allowed as she failed to furnish sufficient proof of six months actual military service, as required by the pension laws. 
His, widow, Hannah, died November 11, 1841. They had
Page 12

ten children, only names stated being, Lemuel born January 23, 1767 and Mrs Ann Miller born about 1776.

The above is the history of the only soldier named Lemuel Brooks (all spellings of the  surname searched) that is found in the Revolutionary War records of this office.
Very truly yours
A.D. MILLER
Assistant to Administrator
Page 13

State of New York
County of Kings ss
I, Naphtali Raymond of the city of Brooklyn in the County of Kings and State of New York, being duly sworn do depose and say that I am now in my seventy fourth year, that I am now a pentioner [pensioner] of the United States of America, that I served in the Malitia [Militia] in actual service of the United States aforesaid in the Town of Norwalk in the State of Connecticut.  And I further say that I make this deposition for the benefit of Samuel Brooks' widow, who is my sister.  that the said Lemuel Brooks & my sister whose name before marriage was Hannah Raymond, were married as I am informed & verily believe about the time of my birth, and have been intimately acquainted with both of them ever since until the time of Lemuel Brooks' death, which took place about the year eighteen hundred and fifteen.  I know that my sister Hannah, the wife of the said Lemuel Brooks, has remained a widow ever since the death of the said Lemuel Brooks & is now a widow & is now about ninety two years of age and now resides in Norwalk in the State of Connecticut and has always resided in Norwalk during her whole life.  I know that Lemuel Brooks always lived in Norwalk aforesaid during his whole life, I know that Lemuel Brooks served in the Malitia [Militia], which
Page 14

was called into the actual service of United States aforesaid in the Town of Norwalk from the commencement of seventeen hundred and eighty until the end of the year seventeen hundred and eighty two, part of the time in Captain Uriah Raymond' Company and part of the time in Captain Eliakim Smith' Company.  the said Brooks acted & served, I believe as private soldier in said Raymond' Company, but as Sargeant [Sergeant] in said Captain Smith' Company and I further state that according to the best of recollection & belief the said Brooks served more than one year in said Captain Smith' Company as sargeant [sergeant], I further state that I served with said Brooks in said Raymond' Company about one year, and was in the habit of seeing him daily during the time of his service in Captain Smith' Company aforesaid, Captain Smith' Company were called the Houshold Company or alarm list.  Captain Raymond' Company were composed of young men and were the Regular Malitia [Militia] called into actual service.  Captain Smith' Company were mostly old or elderly men picked from other companis [companies] both of the aforesaid companies belonged to the same Regiment (commanded by Colonel Marvin according to the best of my recollection) and under the orders of General Silliman.  And I further say that I know that the said Brooks served as Deputy Commissary under Daniel Grey for the Term of about two years from the commencement of the year seventeen hundred & seventy seven
Page 15

to the commencement of the year seventeen hundred and seventy nine, I was in the habit of seeing the said Brooks daily during the whole time he served as Deputy Commissary aforesaid.  I saw him because he was daily in my fathers store during that time, which I usually kept for my Father, and I further say that this deposition is made as I understand for the benefit of the widow of the said Brooks in order to enable her to obtain a pension under the Act of Congress of the 4th of July A. D. 1830.  the widow of the said Brooks was married about the sixty four of our Lord.
Sworn and subscribed before
November 15th 1837
Jno Lott Junr. Justice pc
I do hereby certify that the above deponent is personally known to me as a person of truth and varacity [veracity]
Jno Lott Junr. Justice pc
State of New York}
Kings County} ss
I Abraham Vandever Clerk of the said County do hereby certify that John Lott Jr, before whom the foregoing deposition was taken was on the day of the date thereof a Justice of the Peace in and for said County duly commissioned and sworn and authorized by law to act as such.  And further that I am well acquainted with the hand writing of said Justice and verily believe that the signature
Page 16

of his sett I thereto subscribed is genuine
In Testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed
my name and affixed the seal of said County
the twenty fourth day of November one thousand
eight hundred and thirty seven.
Abam Vandexter
Clerk of Kings County
Page 17

New York May 7, 1838
Mr Poinsett,
Sir
The papers in the pension cases of the Brooks & Mrs Kidd which were handed to you by my friend Mr Sawyer have not as yet been reposted upon, and I trust you will pardon me Sir, for calling your attention to them at this time.
In the case of Mrs Coziah Anne Kidd the widow of Alexander Kidd, the claimant is very desirious to know your decision - it is now about one year since she made the claim and in my opinion a more clear and just claim none exists.
In the case of Mrs Brooks there can be no doubt - all that the [illegible] requires in both of these cases has been certified so far the testimony is concurred.
I hope sir & pray that there may be no further delay in these matters that a decision may be had and in as much as strict and legal justice is all that the claiments desire. They feel a right to call on you as an officer of the government to do them justice withouth further delay.
Edwrd B Brooks
office: 333 Broadway, N. York

Hon. J.B. Painsett
Secy of War, U.S.
Page 18

RA-J/MHT
Nelle Brooks Stull
438 Third Street
Elyria, Ohio

Dear Madam:

Reference is made to your letter of recent date relative to further information in regard to Lemuel Brooks, Revolutionary War soldier.

You are advised that the data furnished you in office letter of July 22, 1931 were obtained from the papers on file in the claim for pension of his widow, Hannah (R.1348).

Perhaps this is not the record of the [William-crossed out] Lemuel Brooks in whom you are interested. It was furnished you as the record of the only soldier by that name on the Revolutionary War records of this office, in order to aid you in your research, if only in the matter of elimination.

Very truly yours

A.D. MILLER
Assistant to Administrator.
Page 19

Mrs. A.E. Taylor
817 Barrington Road,
Detroit, Michigan.

Madam:

I have to advise you that from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim R-1243, it appears that Lemuel Brooks was a native of Stratford, Connecticut, date of birth not stated. He married September 9, 1764, Hannah Raymond, who was born November 21, 1745. He died in October 1816. and she died November 11, 1841. They had ten children, only names stated being Lemuel born January 22, 1767 and Mrs. Ann Miller born about 1776.

The widow Hannah applied for pension [on her application executed (crossed out)] November 22, 1837, while residing in Norwalk, Fairfield County, Connecticut. It is alleged that Lemuel Brooks who resided at said Norwalk Conn at the commencement of the Revolution, was a seafaring man and while on return voyage from the West Indies, was captured off Block Island by the man-of-war "Rose" on September 5, 1775, conveyed to Halifax, but after two months imprisonment he escaped and returned home and took command of a Privateer at New Haven, in which he made one cruise. That he served as Assistant of Deputy Commissary
Page 20

C [illegible] Daniel Gray, during 1777 and 1778.
so during 1780 as private in Captain Uriah Raymond's Company and during 1781 as sergeant in Captain Eliakim Smith's Company on the alarm list standing ready to march at notice, and was in service when Danbury, Fairfield and Norwalk were invaded
He claim was not allowed as she failed to furnish sufficient proof of six months actual military service in as required by the pension laws.
The above noted is the only Lemuel Brooks found on the records of this Bureau.
Respectfully,
Commissioner.
WINFIELD SCOTT,
Page 21


March 10, 1920
Mrs. Nells Stull
428 Third St.
Elyria, Ohio.

Madam;
.
In reply to your letter of the 30"" ultimo, you are
advised that in the Revolutionary War pension claim, Rejected
File 1348, it appear that Lemuel Brooks was a native of Stratford
, Connecticut, date of birth not stated.
He married Sept.
9, 1784, Hannah Baymond, who was born Nov. 21, 1745. He died
in Oct. 1815, and she died Nov. 11, 1841. They had ten child
ren, only names stated being Lemuel born Jan. 28, 1767 and Mrs. Ann Miller born about 1776.
The widow Hannah applied for pension on her application
executed Nov. 23, 1837, while residing in Norwalk, Fairfield Co.
Connecticut. It is alleged that Lemuel Brooks who resided at
said Norwalk at the commencement of the Revolution, was sea
faring man and while on a return voyage from the West Indies,
was captured off Block Island by the [illegible]-of - war Rose on Sept.
6, 1775, conveyed to Halifax, but after two months imprisonment he escaped and returned home and took command of a Privateer
Page 22

Rev, War section
at New Haven, in which he made one cruise. That he served as
Assistant or Deputy Commissary under Commissary Daniel Gray,
during 1777 and 1778. Also during 1780 as private in Capt.
Uriah Raymond's Company and during 1781 as sergeant in Capt.
Eliakim Smith's Company on the alarm list standing ready to
march at notice, and was in service when Danbury, Fairfield
and Norwalk were invaded.
Her claim was not allowed as she failed to furnish sufficient
proof of six months actual military service in the
field, as required by the pension laws.
The at when
Very respectfully,
S[illegible]
Commissioner.
Page 23

July 31, 1923.

Nellie B. Stull,
428 - 3d St.,
Elyria, O.
Madam;

I have to advise you that on March 10, 1920, you
were furnished the history of the only Lemuel Brooks
found on the Revolutionary war records of this Bureau.
Owing to the lack of clerical force available for
such a purpose, it is not the practice of the Bureau, to
send the same history, twice to the same person
Respectfully,
Acting Commissioner.
Page 24

Elyria O.
Gentlemen,
Will you please give me all information
possible relative to Lemuel Brooks.
Grandon of Lord Brooke who with Lord Say both of England settles the Saybrook Fort at the mouth of the Conn, river.
Lemuel Brook fought in the Revolutionary war,
Nelle Brooks Stull
425 3rd St; Elyria Ohio
Page 25


817 Barrington Rd
Detroit Mich
July 25 - 1925.
To Pension Dept of U.S. Old record files
Messrs
Please give information
concerning war record of Lemuel Brooks
whose service as told to his children and
preserved by them is as follows
Served four years in war of the Revolution
acting as quarter Master, fought in
the battles of Bunker Hill, Stillwater
and at Burgoyne's surrender
Was born Feb 20th 1748. Died and is
buried in Greenfield Prop, Huron Co. Ohio.
any information thankfully received
Mrs A. E. Taylor.
817 Barrington Rd. Detroit Mich.
Page 26

[stamp]
CHIEF CLERK G JUN 21 1923
BUREAU OF PENSIONS
Page 27

Rev War Section
NELLE BROOKS STULL.
428-3RD STREET
ELYRIA, OHIO
[stamp] JUNE 20 1923 [illegible]
Dept of Interior
Dear Sir
Will you please send me the
Revolutionary 
record of
Lemuel Brooks, who
served
as quartermaster and in other
capacities in the Revolutionary War,
Thank you
Mrs Stull
Page 28

Nelle Brooks Stull
438 3rd Street
Elyria, Ohio
[stamp] Aug 4, 1923
Office of the commissioner 
U.S. Bureau of Pensions

Mr Hays Haymaker
Dear Sir,
Your letter telling me that I had received a history of Lemuel Brooks on Mar 10th has just arrived, and I can't understand it, I have never received any information regarding him in my life, I only knew about writing to your Dept just a short time ago, some person else must have had the advantage only wish I might know who it is, and I certainly
Page 29

would appreciate this favor from you, as I have taken a very great interest in the D.A.R. and have held office for several years consequently this means more that a passing interest to me. Please investigate.
Nelle B. Stull

[note on margin]
No use to answer thi s again
see her letter of Feb. 2 1920
Page 30

[stamp] PENSION OFFICE U.S. A FEB 24 1920
Page 31

2 ct. stamped envelope enclosed
Elyria O. Feb. 20th
Bureau of Pensions
would you please send me pension record of Lemuel Brooke, born at Enfield Conn. fought in Revolution, acted as quartermaster -
Thanking you in advance
Mrs Nelli Stull
425 3rd st
Elyria
Rev Sec/csw
Page 32

1248
Hanna Brook
widow Lemuel Brooks

Alleges:  List of rejected (or suspended) claims, printed in 1852.
Re-enlisted:  shows cause of rejection as follows; "Evidence of service in a military capacity not sufficient." 

1920 March 10 [remainder of sentence blacked out]
1922 June 15, Hist to W. F. Butcher 701 W. 179 St. N. Y. City; see his letter in Nathaniel Benedict, Conn. S17272
1923 - July 31 - Nellie B. Stull advised that 2 records are furnished same person
Page 33

1931-July 22. Hist to Nelle B. Stull awf
1931-Sept 17 Ad. Nelle B. Stull that
she was fur. hist. of only Lemuel 
17 Ad. Nelle B. Stall that
fur, List of only Lemuel Brooke (Brooks, etc.- on file) EEL
Page 34

I Certify that on examination of the services of Lemuel Brooks in the Revolutionary War, that his name does not appear on the Books of papers in this office neither that or the name of Daniel Grey does not appear - I find in Haskell [illegible]
 under the head of Coast Guard as follows - Cap Uriah Raymond May 2 1778 as [illegible] amount paid £244.5.3 [illegible] value £93.11.2 supposed date of settlement, again, same page Cap Uriah Raymond Jany 28 1779 as Norwalk amount paid £1803.9.1 [illegible] value £212.0.10 again same page Cap Charles Smith June 10 1778 at Stamford under Head of Coat Guards £74.10.2 [illegible]
Comptrollers Office June 8 1838
Henry Kilbourne Comptroller
June 8 1838
Edwin L B Brooks Esqr
Sir,
You will see by the above certificate that I have not been able to find the name of Grey or Brooks in this office and that I have given you all that I can find of the service of Cap. Raymont Smith - we have no records whereby we can find the commission of the Commissary or pay roll of the soldiers except in few instances -
Yours Respectfully
Henry Kilbourne
Page 35

1 Page
New York July 25d 1838
Mr. Poinsett
Dear Sir,
A short time since I received an answer from you in reference to the pension cases of Mrs. Coziah Anne Kidd and Mrs Hannah Brooks, widows of Alexander Kidd and Lemuel Brooks officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary Army, and I now beg leave respectfully to call your attention particularly to the case of Mrs Brooks.  I should first however premise that accompanying your communication to me, was a communication from Mr J. L. Edwards to Mayor S. Cooper acting Secretary of War, upon which communication I presume you must have founded your opinion in the matter of Mrs Brooks, widow of Lemuel Brooks.  I wish now Sir, to call your attention particularly to this communication of Mr Edwards, and I humbly trust Sir, that when I show you the gross errors and misstatement of facts in this communication of Mr Edwards you will be ready to reverse your decision of this matter and with the same in order that justice may be done in the premises.  In the case of
Page 36

2.
Mrs Brooks widow of Lemuel Brooks Mr Edwards the Comr. says, and I quote his words "That the objection to the evidence of Lemuel Brooks on account of his tender age at the time when the facts to which he testifies occurred, does not arise from any supposed incompetency, as to want of memory, but to the deficiency of such knowledge as was essentially necessary for him to pass in order to give any weight to his testimony.  First, if any boys at his age could know from what source the alleged appointment eminated [emanated], the grade in which Brooks served, or the pay he received, although they might have had a knowledge of the employment in which he was engaged.  Now, Sir, the objection here put forth by Mr Edwards, is, that Lemuel Brooks, whom, the deposition of himself shows was sixteen years of age, was too young to know from what source, Brooks alleged appointment eminated [emanated] - what alleged appointment; why evidently Mr Edwards means Brooks' alleged appointment as a deputy Commissary.  But, Sir, this is no objection, only as to the appointment of Brooks as a Deputy Commissary under Daniel Grey.  Mr Edwards in his communication to Mayor Cooper acting Secretary at War, does not mention one word of the fact that Lemuel Brooks Senior served two years in other capacities, that as Deputy Commissary under David Grey.  the evidence, is, that Lemuel Brooks service, served one year as private in Capt Uriah Raymond's Company, and one other year as Sergeant in Capt. Smith's Company, and these facts are all sworn to by Lemuel Brooks Junior, by Naphthili Raymond and by Hanna Brooks, how then is it
Page 37

3d.
I ask that Mr Edwards has not mentioned one ┃
word of these [illegible], certainly, Mr Edwards 
cannot intend to say that
Naphthali Raymond, who
swears that he actually served in the said 
Company with Lemuel Brooks one of the two years
mentioned above, and was in the constant habit
of seeing him in service almost every day
during the other year of his service, was too young
to know the fact of such services and I think
that the[rate] of evidence in such cases
do not require that the deponent should know
from what source the soldier received his 
appointment to act either as a private, or as a sargent [sergeant],
Hannah Brooks sworn to the same service, and
certainly she was old enough to be competent to
testify to this fact, and Mr Edwards, says that the
objection to Lemuel Brooks pension is not upon the
grounds of want of necessary, he is confident then
upon this point for he maintains the services [illegible]
by will.  How then, I say again, is it, that with
this Testimony of three competent witnesses to these
two years last services as private & sargent [sergeant] Mr
Edwards does not say one word?  When Mr
Edwards says that Lemuel Brooks junior was too
young to know from what source his father's
appointment emanated , as[illegible ]Commissary. He
also asserts, that the same objection as the 
Competency appears to the other witnesses, This statement
cannot be admitted as [illegible] for a moment 
because most certainly Hannah Brooks was old
enough being over 30 years of age Napthili Raymond was old enough to know on that subject all he could
know being about sixteen years of age, I shall herewith
Page 38

4th
with [illegible] you a letter, which I have received
from the Comptrollers office at Hartford in which
Mr Henry Kilburn says, that there are no records
in the office whereby the Commission of the 
Commissary or pay Roll of the soldiers can be found except
in very few instances. Now when it shown
that no record exists, the law will admit parole
proof of the facts of service in any and [illegible]
Capacity by Commission or without 
Commission.  It appears that Capt Miah Raymond
& Capt Smith, were in service at the respective times
& periods mentioned, when Brooks served under
them in the Capacity of Sergeant & private, This
is the best evidence that the case admits of and
is all that the law requires.
By the resolution of
the old Congress of June 1777 (see journal  Vol 2
page 155 Section 3d) the Deputy Commissary
Generals have all authority to appoint the assistants
and displace them at pleasure, in the case 
of Brooks therefore no documentary evidence 
existed of his appointment. The pension Be aware of course
will not require such evidence.  It is proper to
remark here that the officer under whom all the ┃
services were performed are proved.
One years service as private, more than one
year service as Sergeant are proved, and
the service is proved to be, actual,
How then is it possible to exclude Mrs
Brooks from the pension.  I trust, Sir, that
you will review your decision upon facts
& errors as being shown. And believe me, Sir, it
is that justice may be done that I have thus
Page 39

5 page
again troubled you with this matter,
Please to answer this at the earliest opportunity.
Yours with great consideration
Edwin L. B. Brooks
Office 333 Broadway
N. York.

To the Hon. J. K. Poinsett}
Secretary at War.}
Page 40

New York November 25th 1837
Mr. Edwards
Sir
I herewith include ┃
you your two Depositions & a Declaration, in
order to obtain a pention [pension] for Mrs Brooks-
be pleased sir to examine the papers &
send me an answer as soon as 
convenient - and much oblige your obedient
Svt.
Edwin S. B. Brooks
Office No. 3 Nassau Street
N. York City.
Be pleased to inform me Sir, whether the child
of the widow of a revolutionary officer is
entitled to the pention [pension] which her father would
be entitled to were he living- in case he
died in the year 1810 & his widow died in
the year 1835.
Page 41

New York 28 Mar 1834
J.L. Edwards Esq
Washington City
Dear Sir
Mrs. Hannah Brooks of Norwalk Ct [Connecticut] is about making application for a pension under the widow act, and I have taken the liberty of addressing you for the purpose of saying that being personally acquainted with her, and [illegible] the ground upon which her application is based I am fully of opinion she is entitled to the pension allowed to the widows of deceased soldiers of the revolution. For any knowledge of my you are referred to the Hon. [Honorable] John Forsyth Secretary of State. As Mrs. Brooks is very aged and in very indigent circumstances I hope her application will prove successful. Should it be denied for
Page 42

want of proper form in the application or for want of sufficient evidence please have the kindness to inform me what is requisite and it shall be complied with. Very truly your obet srvt [obedient servant
John Benjamin
Page 43

Edwin L. B. Brooks
Augt 15 38.
19
Recorded MB
19 page 323
Page 44

W.D.
15 Aug/38
Sir
In the absence of the Sect. [Secretary] of War I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th July with its accompanying 
documents relative to the claim of Mrs. Brooks for a pension.
In answer I have to state that the same shall be submitted
to the Secretary on his return.
Very respectfully
To Edwin. L. B. Brooks Esqr [esquire]
No 333 Broadway
New Yorke [New York]
Page 45

Hon. T J. Whittlesey
June 16 1838
A.C.
Page 46

War Dep
Pen. Off 
June 16th 1838
Sir
I have the honor to return you to you the file of W. Brooks and in reply to state that the case of Mrs. Hannah Brooks widow of Samuel Brooks dec'd received prompt attention in this office as will appear by my letter to the acting Secy [Secretary] of War of 19 Apl [April] 1838 a copy of which was forwarded on 6 April to E. L. Brooks Esqr of New York and an extract from the same, embracing the case of Mrs. Brooks, is also herewith enclosed.
Hon. T J. Whittlesey
Ho.Rep.
Page 47

War Department Pension Office August 11 1838
Sir
In the case of Hannah Brooks, widow of Lemuel Brooks, I make the following report. This claim is on account of the alleged service of Lemuel Brooks, first as an assistant or deputy commissary for about two years, secondly about one year as a private in Capt. [Captain] Raymond's company and lastly as a sergeant from the end of the year 1780 to the close of the war.
In the reports I have heretofore made in this case, I have confirmed my remarks to that portion of the evidence which relates to the alleged service as commissary and I have pursued this course because the persons who have called forth those reports by appeals to the Secretary of War, have always drawn the attention of the department solely to that service. Mr. E. L. B. Brooks, the writer of the enclosed letter, has now abandoned the ground heretofore maintained by the advocate for this claim. He now accuses the undersigned of "gross errors and misstatement of facts." On examining the papers and the correspondence
Page 48

ence on the subject, you will be able to discover how much truth there is in these charges.
After quoting a part of one of my reports relative to the competency of L. Brooks as a witness, the writer says that I do not mention one word of the fact that, Lemuel Brooks, senior, served two years in other capacities than as deputy commissary under Daniel Gray. The evidence is that Lemuel Brooks, Senior served one year as Private in Capt. [Captain] Uriah Raymond's company and one other year as sergeant in Capt. [Captain] Smith's company and these facts are all sworn to by Lemuel Brooks, Junior, by Naphtuli Raymon and by Hannah Brooks. How then is it, I ask, that Mr. Edwards has not mentioned one work of these services? I have already given a reason for not making any comment on the testimony relating to the alleged services of sergeant and private in my reports to the head of this Department. In the other report which have been made, due notice has been taken of this evidence. Neither Capt [Captain] Smith nor Capt [Captain] Raymond belonged to the Continental Army, nor to State troops. They much of course have been Militia officers. Now it is well known that the militia never served more than two or three months at one period. When therefore militia services of one and
Page 49

two years in continuation is set forth in claims of this description, no credit is ever given to such statements, although the department may not be disposed to accuse the witnesses of willful and corrupt perjury. But where statements are made so much at variance with well known facts, whether they originate in an improper conception of the language employed, or in a false notion of what is or is not services or from loss of memory it is our duty to require better proof and a strict adherence to the rule of evidence. The rules require that the witnesses was well as the claimants specify the particular tours of duty in which the soldier service the names and rank of the field and company officers under whom he served, the country through which he marched, and such other particulars as may be necessary in order to a due investigation of the claim. In all these respects, the affidavits of N. Raymond, L. Brooks and Hannah Brooks are deficient. The writer says that Naphtali Raymond shows that he "actually served in the same company with Lemuel Brooks one of the two years mentioned above, and was in the constant habit of seeing him in service almost every day during the other year of his service." 
To show how much credit should be given to Raymond's testimony, it is only necessary to say that in his declaration made in 1832, in order to obtain a pension for himself, although
Page 50

he swore "that he was enrolled in the militia service in the month of April 1780, under the command of Capt. [Captain] Uriah Raymond of Norwalk, and served until the first of May following" (meaning thereby May 1781), yet he was credited less than one month for such alleged service; because there was no satisfactory proof that Raymond's company was ever in the service as alleged. He writer says that he does not think that the rules of evidence require that the deponent should know "from what source the soldier received his appointment to act either as a private or as a sergeant." It is readily admitted that the rules do not require nor do we wish to know, from what source a soldier during his appointments, because he has none. It's however sometimes necessary to know by what authority a sergeant who may claim, received his appointment. But it has always been the rule to require the most positive and unequivocal evidence as to the appointment of a commissary or other commissioned officer. In answer to the reiterated question, how we reject the testimony of three credible witnesses, I again say that their testimony cannot be admitted because their statements are at variance with well known historical truths, and the evidence does not specify
Page 51

the service as the rules direct. The writer says that I objected to the competency of the other witnesses on account of their age. The fact is not so. I objected to their competency in testifying on a particular point, viz the source from whence Brooks derived the alleged appointments of Commissary.
The enclosed letter from the Comptroller of Connecticut proves nothing except that the records of the Commissions of Commissaries are imperfect. The writer says that when no record proof exists, the law will admit parol [parole] proof. This is true in many cases; but no such law applies to this case. This Department has, under the sanction of the Presidents, always exercised the right of establishing such rules as are best calculated to guard against frauds. Under this power the rules of February 21st 1833 was adopted. The principle laid down in that rule is this: 
that if a claim be presented for service as an officer, proof be exhibited that some instrument tantamount 
to a commission, or promise of a commission, be shown to have been issued. Now where the commission is not shown, as in this case proof 
must be produced that it was issued on that
Page 52

some instrument of equal authority was issued  No such proof is produced and the witnesses are not competent to testify on this point.
The writer says that Captains Raymond and Smith "were in service at the respective times and periods mentioned." The only proof of this is the testimony of Raymond an the others whose affidavits I have before observed cannot be admitted as evidence.
There is no doubt that Congress authorized commissions to appoint their assistants but this does not prove that in making such appointments no warrants or commissions were issued.
The writer says "It is proper to remark here that the officers under whom all the services weere performed are proved." What the writer means by proving the officers, I have unable to say. But this much is very clear none of the evidence is sufficient under the rules to establish the claim and I am not authorized therefore to admit it.
The writer makes no comments on the case of Mrs Coziah Ann Kidd. I presume therefore that he does not wish a review of that case.
I enclose the papers (eleven in number) in the case of Mrs. Brooks, and request a return of them to this office, after you have inspected
Page 53

them
I have the honor to be very respectfully your obt. servt. [obedient servant]
J.L. Edwards
Major Samuel Cooper,
Acting Secretary of War
Page 54

432
Pension Office
20th Sept 1853
Sir,
The Power of Attorney to you
in the case of Hannah Brooks decd
widow of Lemuel of Connecticut has
been received and filed with the 
original application.
The claim was originally made
for the service of Lemuel in the
capacities of private, Sergeant and
Commissary; but the proof was not
deemed sufficient to entitle it to 
admission. That his service as private
and Sergeant, were continuous for
over two years, as his witnesses seem
to assert, is not in accordance with
the history of the militia service, and
unsupported by the evidence in
their own applications. His services
as Commissary have not been established
by competent testimony.
The evidence addressed is insuf-
Page 55

insufficient to establish, the dates of 
Lemuels and Hannahs marriage, and death,
and the number and names of their
surviving children.
Wilson H. Clark Esqr.
New Haven
Connecticut.
[the following is written vertically at the right hand edge of the page]
W.B.Clark
Sept 20/58
Page 56

[an ink blob]
Page 57


New Haven Conn
July 27 1853
Dear Sir
Enclosed please find power of attorney from
the heirs of Lemuel & Hannah Brooks, which they
desire to have filed with application of
Hannah Brooks for a pension. Said 
application, was filed as they believe in 1838 or
1839-
Very Respectfully
[illegible] obdt. Servt-
Wilson H . Clark
Hon. L.P. Waldo
Commissioner Pensions
Washington D.C.
Page 58

In the case of Lemuel Brook's widow -
Hannah Brooks [illegible] that Lemuel/Samuel Brooks served as a private in Capt. Raymond's company one year, and subsequently in Capt. Smith's company from the end of 1780 until the close of the war;
and that he served as assistant commissary two years under Daniel Gray company.

Lemuel/Samuel Brooks private was the service in Capt. Smith company; and that early in 1777 he served as deputy commissary under Daniel Gray as forwarding commissary to the troops on the lines, about 2 years. 

Napthali Raymond, himself a pensioner from that 
Lemuel Brooks was called into actual service from commencement of 1780 to end of 1782, part of the time in Raymond company as private, & part as sergeant in [illegible] N Raymond service with Brooks one year. himself in Capt Raymonds company and knows that he served more than year as seqgeant at [illegible] He knows that Brooks served at [illegible] or [illegible] commissary under Daniel Gray two years during which time he saw him daily.

The other material facts of the marriage & death of Brooks continued widowhood of the applicant are clearly made out.

One year's service as a private, more than one year's service as a sergeant, are provided and [illegible] received is proved to be "actual".

The two years service as assistant commissary are proved in the only mode in which the fact is serviceable [?] of proof - by witnesses who kew and personally saw the performance of the services.

By the Resolution of the old Congress of Service 1777 (Jour. Vol. 2, p. 155, sec. 3) "the deputy comm generals have a dugy to appoint" the assistants "and displace them as needed [illegible]". Previously the assistants had been commissioned. In the case of 
Brooks, therefore, no documentary evidence existed of his appointment, the pension bureau will not of course require such evidence.

It is proper to remark that the officers under who all this service was performed are proved - Smith, Raymond, Col Marvins Reg. & Samuel Gray. The commissioner of pensions is repeat fully requested to review this case & the cedision was pending the
Page 59

Actin Secretary of War
April 19, 1838

In the case of Hannah Brooks, the objection to the evidence of Lemuel Brooks, on account of his tender age at the time when the facts to which he testifies occurred, does not arise from any supposed incompetence as to want of memory, but from the office of the comptroller, and without such proof the claim cannot be allowed. Whenever a claim is asserted for service as a commissioned officer, whether by the officer himself, or his widow, there must be proof furnished as to his appointment.
Page 60

State of New Jersey}
County of Passaic}
Be it known that on this fourth day of August A.D., eight hundred and fifty one, before the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace, in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared Mary Brooks widow, a resident of Manchester in said County, and made oath according to law that she is the identical widow of Lemuel Brooks deceased formerly of Norwalk, Fairfield county, state of Connecticut and recently moved to Manchester, state of New Jersey and that her husband Lemuel Brooks was a Revolutionary soldier
and she has been informed that the said pension ought to be closed 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 said claim.
Mary [signed with X] Brooks

Sworn to and subscribed, the day and year aforesaid, before me.
Corns C Blauvelt  Justice of Peace

I, Corns C Blauvelt Justice of the Peace, in and for the said County do hereby certify that Mrs Mary Brooks who executed the foregoing paper is a respectable resident of this County, and is, I believe, directly interested in said claim as therein set forth.
Corns C Blauvelt

I, John Keean, clerk of the county court in the county and state afrewsaid, do hereby certify that Cornelius C Blauvelt before whome the foregoing papers were executed, was, at the date of the same, a Justice of the Peace in and for said County, duly authorized by law to administer oaths; and the name threunto subscribed, is his signature.
In testimony whereo, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official Seal, this fourth day of August A.D. 1851
John Keenan Clerk
[seal affixed]
Page 61

POWER OF ATTORNEY -Revolutionary Pension Claims.

Know all Men by there presents, that I, Mrs Mary Brooks widow of Lemuel Brook deceased of Norwalk Connecticut do hereby constitute and appoint D.L. & S.A. Peugh of Washington City DC my true and lawful Agents and Attorneys to prosecute the Claim of Lemuel Brook deceased for any amount of Revolutionary Pension, or Incease of Pension, that may be due; and I hereby authorise my said Agent to examine all the papers and documents in relation to said claim, on file in the Departments at Washington City, or elsewhere; to file additional evidence or arguments; and to receive the Certificate which may be issued for said Claim, and

to appoint one or more substitutes under them 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. and declare this power of attorney revocable. 
Witness my hand and Seal this 4th day August A.D., 1851
Mary [her mark X] Brooks

Signed and Sealed in the presence of}
Corns C. Blauvelt}
David D. Demarriss
Cornelius C VanHouten