Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 15461, William Walker, Mass.

SERVICE
NUMBER _____
Mass.
Walker, William
N. 15461.
Mary
CONTENTS

11.026
Massachusetts
Mary Walker, wid
Widow of William Walker
who was a pensioner under the Act of — and who died on the 31 Octr 1831
of Seno rs in the State of Mass who was a Brz. Majr in the
commanded by Captain
Reyt commanded by Col  of the  Pickens in the Mass line for 6 mo was Adjt 31 st Year Adjt of Vt.
Inscribed on the Roll of Boston at the rate of 278 Dollars 61.
Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1836. 3 10 3 Decr 1838
Certificate of Pension issued the 11 th day of Aug 1831 and sent to Alex r Ray
Total amount, $ Present
[Act July 7, 1838.]
Recorded by J. R. Weightman Clerk, Book D , Vol. 1 , Page 373
Let Alex r Ray June 25. 1853
Alexander Ray,
4 th Oct. 1853.
1896 Aug 9 Hon H. D. Daines - that if his order ly Book was filed it has been lost in the confusion of removing the office several times since 1845 as it cannot be found
This Orderly book was on file in the Bureau of Pensions until Feb. 9. 1909 when it was sent (by order of Secy. of Int.) to Library of Congress.

32,807
Massachusetts
William Walker, and of Lenox in the State of New York who was a S t Adjt t in the _____ commander by Captain _____ of the Reg t commander by Col Patterson in the Mass line for 1 year Adjt t & Lieut t and 6 months Adjutant Mass
Inscribed on the Roll of Boston at the rate of 278 Dollars 61 Cents per annum, to commence on the 14th day of March, 1831. & Endg 31 st Oct r 1831.
Certificate of Pension issued the 27 th day of Jany 1831 and sent to A. Ray Esq r
Arrears to the 14th of Present Semi-ant. allowance ending
Recorded by D. R. Weightman } Revolutionary Clai Book C. Vol. 2, Page 95 } Act June 7 th 1832

Berkshire ss. I Charles Sedgwick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for said County of Berkshire do certify that the foregoing contains the original proceedings of the said Court in the matter of the application of William P. Walker Son of William Walker deceased for a Pension.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & affixed the seal of said Court this twelfth day of March 1844. Charles Sedgwick Clerk

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Secretary's Office, Dec 29 1843
I hereby Certify, That, from an examination of the Books and Documents, relating to Military Services in the War of the Revolution, which remain in this Department, it appears that the name of William Walker of Lenoir is found upon the Eight months, returns in Oct 1778, as an Adjutant in the Regiment of Col Geo Patterson, and is the only roll upon which his name appears in this Office.
The rolls of the soldiers for the Eight months do not bear the name of said Walker, and there are no rolls of Col Patterson in this Office for the year 1778.

And I further Certify, That, before search made for evidence of said facts, the application hereto annexed was filed in this Office, in the form in which the same now appears; that the search was made by myself and my clerks alone: and that said application and the certificate above set forth, contain all the facts and circumstances which tend to satisfy me of the identity of the party described in the application with the individual who rendered the service.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto affixed the Seal of the Commonwealth, the date above written.
Jno A. Bolles
Secretary of the Commonwealth.

State of Massachusetts. Berkshire County, Town of Lenox.
The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is hereby requested to furnish evidence from the Rolls in his Office of the Services of William Walker late of Lenox aforesaid deceased, in the War of the revolution -
I William P. Walker of Lenox aforesaid, the son of the said William Walker, and Executor of his last Will and Testament, hereby certify, that I verily believe the said William Walker went from the town of Lenox aforesaid in the Month of April or May 1775 as a soldier in the company commanded by Capt. Dibble or Capt. Williams from Stockbridge in the Regiment commanded by Col. John Patterson, and that he went to the town of Charlestown near Boston, and that he continued with said Regiment serving either as a soldier or officer, but in what capacity is not known, till the eighth day of July 1775. after which time I have reason to believe he served as the Adjutant of the Regiment. Commanded by Col. Patterson till the first day of January 1776 whether with or without a commission is not known - and I further have reason to believe, that on the said first day of January 1776. he received the appointment and a Commission as Lieutenant and also as Adjutant in the Regiment commanded by the said Col. John Patterson in the New Army or Continental Establishment - and that he

he continued to serve as Lieutenant and Adjutant in the Regiment commanded by said Col. Paterson till some time in the year 1777 -
That he went with the Army and his Regiment in the spring of 1776. to Canada - was at Crown Point in July 1776. at Mount Independence in August and Sept. and was with the Army at the North in the fall of that year and on their retreat till his Regiment joined the Army commanded by Genl Washington before the battles at Trenton and Princeton, and was with his Regiment in both of those battles - At what time he left the Army is not certainly known to me - I have reason to believe he was in the battle at Bennington and at the taking of Burgoyne in 1777. - But in what capacity he served, I cannot say -
The said William Walker died at said Lenox on the 31. day of October A.D. 1831. aged eighty years. and I have no means to enable me to state his services in the Army of the Revolution more fully than above. And I hereby constitute Hon. Samuel Gates of Richmond my Attorney in the Premises -
Witness my hand this 23 rd day of December A.D. 1843.
Signed by said William P. Walker in my presence Henry W. Bishop Justice of the Peace
William P. Walker

Wm P. Walker
Wheeler to Cumberland Falls at the next meet. ing of the Council

I Oziel W. Hastings of Senne in the County of Berkshire and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of lawful age depose and say, that I was well acquainted with William Walker late of Senne aforesaid, deceased, and was present at the time of his death, which took place on the thirty first day of October A.D. 1831.
Oziel W. Hastings
Berkshire ss. Feby 28 th 1844
Subscribed & sworn to by the said Oziel W. Hastings on the day & year aforesaid, and I certify that the said Hastings is a credible witness -
Wm. J. Tucker Just Peace
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Berkshire S.
I Charles Sedgwick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Berkshire, do certify that William J. Tucker was on the 28 th day of February last, & now is, one of the Justices of the Peace in & for said County duly Commissioned & qualified, and that the above endorsed signature purporting to be his is genuine. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & affixed the Seal of said Court this Sixth day of March 1844. Charles Sedgwick Clerk

State of Massachusetts } County of Berkshire } ss.
On this Sixth day of March in the year of our Lord Eighteen hundred and forty four, personally appeared in open Court, before the Honorable Court of Common Pleas, now sitting at Lenox within and for said County, William P. Walker a resident of said Lenox, who being sworn according to law, doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the provision of the Act of Congress passed June 7. 1832. That he the said William P. Walker is the son of William Walker late of Lenox aforesaid, deceased, and sole Executor of his last will and testament. That the said William Walker entered the service of the United States in the year 1775. and served as Adjutant in the Regiment commanded by Col. John Patterson, at or near Boston, for the term of eight months previous to November in that year, being returned as having so served, in the eight months return in October 1775. as appears by the certificate from the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts herunto annexed, and from evidence herewith exhibited, this deponent has reason to believe, he so continued to serve as Adjutant in Col. Pattersons Regiment, during the months of November and December of the same year - That on the first day of January 1776. the said William Walker was appointed a Lieutenant and also Adjutant in the Regiment commanded by Col. Patterson and served as such, during the whole of the year 1776 and part of the year 1777. but at what time, he left the Army, this deponent cannot say.

The Commission aforesaid of the said William is annexed to the affidavit of Mary Walker his widow, for a Pension, now on the files of suspended applications for Pensions, in the Pension Office, at Washington.
For evidence of the services of said William, reference is had to the documents herewith presented, and to the Records remaining in the War Office at Washington.
This deponent further declares that the said William Walker died at said Lenox, on the thirty first day of October 1831. aged eighty years, and that his only children and heirs at law, are this deponent and his sister Sarah Worthington now resident at Stockbridge in said County.
He hereby relinquishes any claim whatever to a Pension or annuity, except the present, and declares that the name of his father is not on the Pension Roll of the Agency of any State.
William P. Walker
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Berkshire ss. Court of Common Pleas at Lenox this sixth day of March 1844. From & subscribed the day & year aforesaid before the Hon. David Cummins Presiding Judge of the Court aforesaid & the said Court hereby declare their opinion that the said William P. Walker is the son of William Walker late of Lenox deceased & that said William Walker was a soldier of the Revolutionary & served therein.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Berkshire Co: Court of Common Pleas, Feb. Term 1844.
I Charles Sedgwick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for said County of Berkshire do hereby certify that on the said fourth day of March 1844. Satisfactory evidence has been exhibited to said Court that Mary Walker The widow of William Walker Esq. late of Lenox in the County of Berkshire decd. died at said Lenox on the tenth day of December Eighteen hundred & thirty eight, aged seventy eight years and that there is no child or children of the said Mary Walker now living In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & affixed the seal of said Court. this sixth day of March 1844.
Charles Sedgwick Clerk,

This may certify that William Walker Esq of Lenox was married to Mrs Mary Parmelee of Goshen March twenty fourth Seventeen hundred and ninety.
By me, Sam l Jno Mills at Goshen in Connecticut. Dated Lenox Feby twenty first Seventeen hundred ninety one.
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the record with the exception of the dates which are expressed on the Record in fair legible figures as follows. "March 24 th 1790" "Dated Lenox Feby 21 st 1791." -
Wm S. Tucker Town Clerk County of Berkshire Town of Lenox State of Massachusetts - Feb 26 th 1844. I William S. Tucker above named depose & say that I hold the office of Clerk in the County Town State aforesaid, & that the above is a true extract from the records of said town with the exceptions above named as certified by me. -
Wm S. Tucker Clerk of the Town of Lenox Sworn to before me Feb. 26. 1844. C. Sedgwick Justice of the Peace

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Berkshire ss.
I Charles Sedgwick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of the Commonwealth, for the County of Berkshire, do certify that Charles Sedgwick Esq. is one of the Justices of the Peace in & for said County, duly commis- sioned & qualified. and that the within signature purporting to be his is genuine
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & affixed the seal of said Court at Amherst this twenty sixth day of February 1844. Charles Sedgwick Clerk

I Nathaniel S. Parmelee of the Town of Goshen in the County of Litchfield and state of Connecticut aged (77) seventy seven years. depose and say, That I was well acquainted with William Walker late of Lenox M s , and I was also well ac- quainted with Mary Parmelee formerly of this town and now of Lenox, and the widow of the said William Walker, she being sister-in-law to me, that while she resided in this town previous to the year 1791. I should think in the winter or spring of 1790. she was married to said Wil- iam Walker, by the Rev. Samuel J. Mills of Gorin- -gton in this County. I was present and witnessed the marriage - and further the deponent saith not — Nathaniel S. Parmelee mark-
State of Connecticut, Litchfield County ss Goshen August 28 th A.D 1838. Personally appeared the above named Nathaniel S. Parmelee signer of the foregoing deposition, and to me known to be a credible witness, and made oath in due form of law to the truth of the same. Before me Nelson Brewster Justice of Peace

I Rosanna Parmelee wife of Nathaniel S. Parmelee aged (73) twenty three years of age and say that I was well acquainted with Mary Parmelee, now the widow of William Walker of Lenox Mts. that before her marriage with the said Walker she resided in this town, Goshen Count, that she was married to the said William Walker before the year 1790. I should say in the winter or spring of 1790. I was present at the time of the marriage, they were married by the Rev. Sam l J. Mills of Torrington in this County - and further saith not - Rosanna Parmelee
State of Connecticut Litchfield County 3 d Goshen Aug 27 th 1838
Personally appeared Rosanna Parmelee signor of the foregoing deposition, and to me known to be a credible witness, and made oath to the truth of the same in due form of law Before me
Nelson Brewster justice of the peace

6 Willard Gaylord of Goshen in the County of Litchfield and State of Connecticut. Depose and say that I hold the Office of Clerk of the Town of Goshen in the County and State aforesaid and that I have made diligent search of the Records of said Town and can find no record of the Marriage of William Walker and Mary Parmele } Willard Gaylord Clerk of the Town of Goshen
State of Connecticut Litchfield County ss. Goshen Aug 28 th 1838 Personally appeared Willard Gaylord signor of the foregoing certificate. to me known to be a credible witness. I made oath to the truth of the same Before me Nelson Brewster Justice of Peace
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, } ss. Litchfield. LITCHFIELD COUNTY.
I Geo. P. Woodruff Assistant Clerk of the County Court of the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Nelson Brewster Esq is a Justice of the Peace in and for said County, duly commissioned and qualified, and by Law authorized to administer Oaths and to take the acknowledgment of Deeds. And that his commission was dated on the 29 th day of May A.D. 1838 and will expire on the 20th day of June, A.D. 1839 and that the preceding signatures, which purport to be his, are genuine
Given under my hand and the Seal of said Court this 30 th day of August A.D. 1838
Geo. P. Woodruff Assistant Clerk

(M c Mary) Walkers 318 ay  acc  D application for a Pension
Berks. County Mass.
Vid. order-Books filed in this case
vol 26. page 267 not on roll
[Faint, illegible handwriting]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Berkshire County. ss
On this sixth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty eight personally appeared before the Honorable Solo- mon Strong a Judge of the Court of Com- mon Pleas within & for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Mary Walker a resident of Senox in said County of Berkshire aged seventy eight years, who being first duly sworn according to law doth on her oath make the following decla- ration in order to obtain the benefit of the provision made by the act of Congress passed July 7th. 1838 entitled "an act granting half pay and pensions to certain widows". That she is the widow of William Walker , who was an adjutant in the militia, which marched in 1775 from said County to Boston, and "a first Lieutenant in the 15 Regiment of Foot commanded by Colonel John Patterson & also Adjutant of said Regiment in the Army of the Revolution". He went with the troops from Senox in said County of Berkshire to Cambridge in April 1775. in Col. John Patterson's Regiment and was Adjutant of that Regiment. The first entry on the orderly book, kept by him as dated "Cambridge Head Quarters July 8th 1775." He was at Cambridge during the Summer of 1775. His Commission in the Continental Army as first Lieutenant and Adjutant in the 15. Regiment of Foot commanded by Colonel John Patterson is dated Jan. 1. 1776. He marched with his Regiment in the Spring of 1776 from Boston to Crown Point & Ticonderoga & was there

in July 1776 and remained there & in Canada during the summer of 1776 and returned in the fall of that year and joined the army com- manded by General Washington in New Jersey. He was in the battle of Trenton December 25. 1776. At what time he resigned his commission and left the army your applicant is unable to state but supposes it to have been in the winter or Spring of 1777. He is not known to have been in the Army after that time except at the battle of Binnington in August 1777. No person living is known to your appli- cant by whom his services can be proved, but it is believed that there is evidence at the War office at Washington, especially in the records sent from Massachusetts by which his services and the time he served can be made certain. He is not known to have served in any other Regiment than that under the com- mand of Colonel John Patterson, and in that Regiment he is believed to have served as Adjutant from April 1775 and also as Lieutenant & Adjutant from Jan'y 1. 1776 till the Spring of 1777. The said Applicant hereto annexes the Commission of her said husband

She further declares that she was married to the said William Walker at Goshen in the State of Connecticut on the twenty fourth day of March in the year of our Lord seventeen hundred & ninety that her husband the aforesaid William Walker died on the thirty first day of October in the year of our Lord Eighteen hundred and thirty one that she was not married to him prior to his leaving the Service, but the marriage took place previous to the first of January Seventeen hundred and ninety four. over at the time above stated and was solemnized before the Rev. Samuel John Mills, Mary Walker
Subscribed & sworn to before me Solomon Strong Judge as aforesaid, and I certify that said declaration was taken at the residence of the said Mary Walker, at Senoq aforesaid and that she was, by reason of age and bodily infirmity unable to appear in open court to make said declaration, and that the word "Eight" immediately following the word "seventy" on the last page of the declaration, was interlined before the declaration was sworn to.
Solomon Strong.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Berkshire County ss - I Charles Sedg- wick Esq. Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas within & for the said County do certify that the foregoing contains

The original proceedings of said Court in the matter of the application of Mary Walker for a pension. That the Honorable Solomon Strong is a Judge of said Court, and that his signature subscribed to the foregoing certificate is his genuine signature. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & the seal of said Court this sixth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred & thirty eight.
Chas. Sedgwick Clerk

I Charles Worthington of Lenox in the County of Berkshire and Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Physician. do depose and say. that I was the attending Phy- sician of the late William Walker late of said Lenox deceased that I attended him during his last sickness, and was present at his death that he died on the thirty first day of October A.D 1831 at his residence in said Lenox that he left Mary Walker. now residing in said Lenox his widow, who now is & ever since the death of the said William Walker has been his widow
Dated at Lenox this eighth day of November A.D 1838
Charles Worthington
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Berkshire County ss. November 6. 1835 Then personally appeared the above named Charles Worthington and subscribed & swore to the foregoing deposition and I certify that the said Charles Worthington is well known by me & is a credible person.
Henry W Bishop Justice Peace
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Berkshire ss. I Charles Sedgwick Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Berkshire do certify that Henry W. Bishop Esq. is a Justice of the Peace within & for said County duly commissioned & qualified as such & that the above signature purporting to be his; & the certificate to the affidavit of Charles Worthington are in his hand writing In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & affixed the seal of said Court this twelfth day of November 1838 Charles Sedgwick Clerk.

Pittsfield (Mass) March 18 th 1845.
J. L. Edwards Esq.
Dear Sir
I have just received a letter from you dated the 14 th instant, about Mercy Walker, stating that I had made a statement concerning her Pension. This is a mistake. I have no recollection of making any statement respecting the claim of Mercy Walker, concerning whom I know nothing. The mistake probably arose from my defective handwriting, as I have sent you some statements relative to the claim of Mary Walker, to which I beg leave again to call your attention referring to my former communication.
Mary Walker was the widow of the late Judge William Walker of Lenox, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. This is the case concerning which you went with me to the late Secretary of War, on the 5 th instant, when no hearing was had.
It is a case which seems clear to my mind, and I think upon a Review of it you will agree with me. The evidence of his services - the marriage & every thing you will find complete. You will also find her will among the papers.
In her lifetime she made her Application for the Pension to which she was then entitled. She referred for the proof of his services to the Massachusetts Rolls then in your office. You wrote to Mr. Bishop her Attorney, that the evidence could not be found upon those Rolls. After receiving that letter she died. After her death, and after those Rolls had gone back to Massachusetts, & immediately after a search was made there and the evidence obtained and sent to you. When I went to
(over)

Washington in February 1844, you wrote me that the evidence was complete (as I had done something in the matter at the request of the Administrator upon her estate). I was waiting for the certificate, instead of which you afterwards informed me, that no certificate could be issued, that on the ground that she left no children, though her husband left children by a former wife, one of whom was her Administrator or Executor. I felt bound to resist this opinion of yours, and have attempted to make an argument on the subject which is among the papers. I believe that in February 1844 I left in your office two books, kept by William Loether, during his service, which furnished cumulative testimony, and which you now have. I believe one of those books, so fully corroborated the other sufficient testimony in the case, as to leave no doubt, of his services, or of the office in which he acted, though some of the particulars are out of my mind. The matter lay along till this last session. Then you proposed to lay it before the Secretary of War. But this has not yet been done, as you could not get it acted on. I hope it will now be settled. I wish you could see your way clear to settle it in of the application  our favor, yourself. But if you convince still that there are doubts in the case, I must request you to refer it to the present Secretary of War, if that course is agreeable to you. I hope you will pardon this long story, because I wished to bring the prominent facts again to your mind. The papers in connection with this statement will show the whole case; & I have no doubt, it will be correctly decided.
Very Respectfully, Your obedient servant Julius Rockwell

Rev WIDOW, &c. aw
1909 Feb. 9. Orderly Book sent to Library of Con- gress.
File No. 15461
Mary Walker Widow of William Walker Lieut Genl War
Act: July 7th 38
Index:—Vol. M , Page 318
[Arrangement of 1870.]

Mary Walker Massachusetts
Suspended
See let 13 May 1837 to Henry W. Bishop let to Hon J Rockwell Feb. 19. '41
Act 7 July 1838

1st Lieut. and Adjutant in Col. Patterson's Regiment Jan. 1. 1776.
IN CONGR ESS
Waltham, Wm. Mass. W15461

IN CONGRESS.
The DELEGATES of the United Colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the Counties of Newcastle, Kent, and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, to William Walker Esqr.
WE reposing especial trust and confidence in your patriotism, valour, conduct and fidelity, DO by these presents constitute and appoint you to be a First Lieutenant in the
15 Regiment of foot commanded by Colonel John Patterson also adjutant of said Regiment in the army of the United Colonies, raised for the defence of American Liberty, and for repelling every
hostile invasion thereof. You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge the duty of a First Lieutenant by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging. And we do strictly charge and require all officers and soldiers under your command, to be obedient to your orders, as a First Lieutenant Esqr. And you are to observe and follow such orders and directions from time to time as you shall receive from this or a future Congress of the United Colonies, or Committee of Congress, for that purpose appointed, or Commander in Chief for the time being of the army of the United Colonies, or any other your superior officer, according to the rules and discipline of war, in pursuance of the trust reposed in you. This commission to continue in force until revoked by this or a future Congress.
Jan'y 1. 1776.
By Order of the Congress.
John Hancock President
Chatham Esqr.

House of Representatives
J. L. Edwards, Esq.
April 16. 1844.
Com te of Pensions
Sir -
I take leave in the case of Ellery Walker's Pension, to transmit to you
1. The will of the said Ellery Walker, duly authenticated, by which William P. Walker is made her Executor, and residuary legatee. 2. The decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the case of Foot vs Knowles .
In that case Mrs. Prudence Foot the Pensioner left four children - two by Knowles her first husband & two by Foot her second husband - Knowles having been the husband who served in the army.
One fourth of this Pension had been paid by the Department to one of the Knowles children - James Foot one of the Foot children, being the Executor of Mrs. Prudence Foot, brought his action to recover this fourth, and by the decision of that Court, he as Executor recovered it -
Now Sir I beg you to read these papers, and if it appears by them, that the Foot case is similar to this, (as I suppose it is) you will see that, if you should direct this Pension to be divided, your decision if brought into our Court would be set aside & the Executor would recover the whole (over)

That being the case, and such being the settled law in Massachusetts; I suppose you Sir, as Commissioner of Pensions, would do far as Pensions payable in Massachusetts are concerned, conform to it.
I merely make this communication to you, in order to save trouble to the parties, there being no conflicting interest that I know of - and the whole as I suppose being a matter of form & convenience.
I have marked the passages in the opinion of the Court, which announce that opinion.
I will attend at your office again if you think it necessary or desirable.
Very Respectfully your friend & obedient servant J. Rockwell.

Jun 38
Miss
Shady Valley
Stn. J. Rockwell
Member of Congress
Washington City
Hon. A. Rockwell A.D.

Leesburg March 12. 1844.
My dear Sir.
I rec d the Letter sent you by the Pension agent admitting that sufficient proof had been furnished of the services of my father as Adjutant for six months in 1775. and as Lieut. Adjutant for twelve months in 1776. you will find among the papers sent you in relation to his Pension - a Certificate from the Secy of this State, proving 8. months service previous to Nov r 1775 as Adjutant & the Adjutant Books you took down, prove that he also served as Adjutant in Nov r & Dec r 1775. according to my recollection of them then making 10. months service in 1775. as Adjutant - He undoubtedly served the whole of 1776. but whether any in 1777 I cannot say - though I doubt whether he continued in the service after Col. Patterson was appointed a Brigadier General which I think was in Feb y 1777 - so that sufficient proof seems to have of his service for one year & 10. months - of all this however you can best judge -
I send you a certificate from our Towns Clerk, as to the marriage of Mary Walker the to prove her marriage she sent two affidavits, which are now on file with her papers - As the marriage took place at Forsyth, I did not think of looking at our Records here, and I was not aware than any exhibit till long after her papers were sent & from the letter you took which was sent Mr. Bishop from the Pension office, I did not know how to prove the services of my father as it was stated that no wider exhibit at Washington of course we abandoned the case there -
No miles is the name of my mother in 1790. was married to my father - Joseph when at least in the 1791. he gave the Certificate which was recorded here -

so that sufficient widow's pension now to be furnished after marriage a portion of her husband for at least one year $10. month - I also now for a year a certificate from Judge Cummings that as to the time of her death & that she left left no children living. If a Pension is granted the question then arises who is to receive it - I have looked at the case of Foot as known to in which you was Counsel and I think it clearly settles the question - Her Representative, that is her Executor is to receive the money & it is to be disposed according to her will - She made a will in which I am Executor & residuary legatee - Mr Foot made his will before the Pension was granted & also died before it was granted - In this respect my mother's case compares exactly with hers - To save the trouble of sending to Northampton & of getting from them a certificate that I am Execr of her will I have sent you my my original Letter of Attorney with the will to use if necessary, which I wish however you would look for me - and as the case of Foot as known to may of some use to you, I have had it copied & shall send it - as you may not find the H. Parl. of Metcalfe Reports, at Washington you will make such disposition of the case as you think proper & get such Pension Certificate as the Agent thinks proper to make - As to the amount I know nothing - Tainter says a Secret & Adjutant's pay was about $40. a month - I would have sent you a certificate as to my being the Execr of my father's will but I had none - you will

see that Judge Cummins states, that sufficient proof was allowed to him, to prove that I was his son - I suppose I should be entitled to the draw the Pension, if one is granted to him - The Pension in his case will be small being only, as I understand the law, from March 4. 1831. to Octo. 31. 1838. the time of his death - I hope all the papers necessary are forwarded you for both cases - If any further are necessary write me - the Books you took down - I should like to have returned, if consistent with the Regulations of the Pension Office - I think says it is so -
I don't know the weight you are entitled to receive in our package as fee - if any postage is paid you will remit it to me -
I have written in some haste & you may not be able, I fear, readily to read all -
I am Sir, yours sincerely
W. P. Walker.
Hon. J. K. Pierce. Washington -

32807 Wm. Walker and Neph- Acc 7 - June, 1832 Bal. 1 mo. Adpt. & 1 yr Adpt & St. $ 278.61 Balance from 4 th Mo. 1831 to 31 Dec 1831, when he died.
Payable to Wm. P. Walker, Exr-
Cash sent to A. Ray Present

Goldsworthy Forum of Pennsylvania THE
Henry W. Bishop, Esq. Genoa,
Massachusetts.
  936  160     2  936     1872  436     32  1832     82  2     326  2064     806  160  436     2  2    346  320  872  

War Department,
Pension Office,
May 13 d 1839.
Sir,
The papers in the case of Mrs Mary Walker, widow of William Walker, deceased, have been examined and filed with suspended cases. The records here afford no proof of the alleged service in the Massachusetts line, in 1776, or 1775, as Adjutant in Col Patterson's Regiment. Proof of the service should therefore be exhibited. Record or documentary proof is always required when it can be procured. If there be a family record of the marriage it should be transmitted to this office.
I am, respectfully,
Yours obedt servt.
Henry W. Bishop, Esq.
J. L. Edwarth
Leroy,
Massachusetts.

1 st sheet.
Mary Walker of Lenox, Mass ts died leaving a Will, by which she appointed William P Walker of said Lenox her Executor.
It has been settled at the Pension Office that if Mary Walker were now living, the proof is sufficient to entitle her to the Pension.
She made application for her Pension previous to her death - but the evidence was not then perfected; but this has been done by her Executor since her death.
It is understood the Commissioner of Pensions declines issuing the Certificate, and enabling her Executor to receive the Pension, to be disposed of according to her Will (an authenticated copy of which is in the Pension Office) upon the ground that Mary Walker, left no children of her own: that by reason of that the right to receive this Pension ceased on her death; and nobody being now entitled to receive it, it lapses to the Government.
This opinion of the Commissioner, I respectfully consider erroneous; and ask his attention in review of the same to the following considerations -
The Commissioner I am sure will give me this indulgence as nobody who is concerned wishes to do more than to have a correct decision, to come to which I know is the sincere wish and intention of the Commissioner of Pensions.

The next question is, whether upon the death of a widow entitled to a Pension, under the Act of 4 th July 1836: said widow leaving no children of her own; the Pension is payable to her Executor, she having left a Will, which has been duly proved - and she having applied for the Pension previous to her death.
My Position is; that the right to receive this Pension vested in her; that is to say was a vested right in her; and was therefore subject to her disposal by Will, and if she had left no Will might have been claimed by her heirs.
1. By the Decision of the Attorney General (Butler) of Feb 28. 1834; upon the Act of June 7. 1832, chap 126; it is settled That; "In case of the death of the Pensioner, leaving neither widow nor child, his legal representative (That is to say his Executor or Administrator) is entitled to the balance due at the time of his death. The clause in that Act is this. "and in the case of the death of any person embraced by the provisions of this Act, or of the Act to which it is supplementary, during the period "intervening between the semi-annual payments directed "to be made by said acts, the proportionate amount "of pay which shall accrue between the last preceding "semi-annual payment & the death of such person "shall be paid to his widow, or if he leave no widow "to his children".
Here it is obvious, that this clause does not carry it to

The legal representatives, in a case where the pensioner left no widow or children. The ground of the decision must be therefore that the right to receive such balance was a vested right in the Pensioner; that is to say the right to that money had passed out of the Government, was vested in the Pensioner, & must be paid to his Executor or Administrator. The clause of the Act above quoted, to be sure specified where it should go provided he left a widow or children; but if he left no widow or children, then the Act stood as if no such clause were in it; and by the vigour of the Act itself, without that clause, the Balance due went to his legal representatives. In that case Under that Act a case might arise in which that balance might revert  lapse to the Government; but it would be the case, where the Pensioner had no legal representatives, that is to say, had no Executor or Administrator, & had no heirs.
Then it would lapse to the Government, as all his other estate would lapse to the State; if a man dying leaves no legal representatives to take it. In such case, nobody being entitled to the estate; The Government under which he lived takes it. But the right to receive this Balance, having vested in the Pensioner, can never be divested out of him, or his representatives; but in case there are no representatives, legal or personal, it goes to the Government because it can go nowhere else.
Now the Act of 4th July 1836, gave this Pension

to Mary Walker, the widow of William Walker. By that Act, the right to receive this Pension vested in her, upon her application for it . That right having vested in her, could never be resumed by the Government. The Government might afterwards direct how it should go after her death, whether to her children or to her legal representatives, but could not resume it; could not take it back. The Government promised for a valuable consideration to pay this money, if a widow entitled applied for it. Mary Walker did apply she was entitled - the right to receive it vested in her; in her, and in her Executors, Administrators and heirs, and while she has either, the money is theirs and not the money of the Government. So the Attorney General decided in the case of a Balance due to a Pensioner at the time of his death, in the opinion I have above quoted and the two cases cannot be distinguished in point of principle.
Consistent with these views, and indeed going further is the opinion of the Attorney General (Butler) to Mr. Poinsett, dated April 13. 1837; in answer to the
Third Point - as follows.
3. "Even the children of a widow who was living on "the 4th July last, and was entitled to the benefit "of the third section of the Act, now draw the "amount due up to the day of her death, although "she failed to apply?" "According to several opinions heretofore given

2. Meet.
"in this office, especially in navy pension cases, The "right of the widow under the act is to be regarded as a "vested interest accruing on the passage of the law, and "not defeated by her omission to apply for it; and it "goes as such, on her death to her personal representative, "there being no special provision in the law giving it "a different direction"
He here decides, that "the right of the widow under the act is to be regarded as a vested interest " accruing on the passage of the law "
It being a vested interest , he says it must go to the children, in a case where there were children.
Now here is a case where the widow has not left children. Where then does it go? Being vested in the widow, it was divested out of the Government, for for a right cannot be vested in two at the same time. The Government has no right to it, as long as there is any legal or personal representative of the widow. The reasoning of the Attorney General applies to this case as well as to that. A vested interest must go to the personal and legal representatives of the party in whom it was vested. In the case of the children, they were entitled as Mr Butler said, as the personal representatives of the deceased widow. The question was not put to him whether it should be paid directly to the children, or to the Executor or Administrator if there had been one. That is another question.

But that other question is easily settled: as I will undertake to show.
Mary Walker, the widow in this case was entitled to the Pension. That you have decided. Of the evidence which is now in your office, had been put in at the time of her application, you would have issued the certificate to her. Her right to it was then perfect. The Attorney General says it was a " vested interest " in her.
Now we agree so far.
Here then was a vested interest . A vested interest , goes by law, every where, to the representative of the person in whom it vested. It is no matter to the government, to which kind of representatives it goes, whether to the legal or personal representatives in cases where there is any distinction between them. The government must pay it to somebody. The government has no right to retain it. To be sure the Commissioner of Pensions & the War Department must be satisfied which  who , is entitled to receive it - but this is a mere matter of form. The government owes it to somebody, and can never discharge itself of the debt but by paying it.
In this case the legal representative , the Executor of Mary Walker demands it. If Mary Walker had left children, you would pause, before paying it and enquire, whether the Executor or the children were entitled to receive it. But that question does not arise in this case, because it is proved to you that she left no children. The Massachusetts Court

denied that the Executor was entitled. But no such question exists in this case.
I understood you to take the ground that, though this was a vested interest , yet that it vested in her, only for her benefit and that of her children if she had any; and this opinion was fortified by the Act of 1840. But in my judgment, when you come to examine that Act, you will find it does not touch this case.
Besides such a view is inconsistent as I think with the nature and full effect of a vested interest . A vested interest , is an inheritable interest , going to Executors or heirs; and can never lapse to the Government, but in case of there being no Executors, Administrators or heirs.
With these views, I must request you to review your opinion in this case, and I feel confident you will see your way clear to pay this to the Executor. With much respect
Your friend and obedient servant
Julius Kochuel
J. L. Edwards Esq Coun d of Penns y Washington City D. C.
P. S. As to the 2 d Section of the Act of June 19. 1844, I will further to say that I do not understand that it touches this case. This is a case where the widow did not leave any children . This case therefore is to be treated as if that Act had never passed, and rests entirely upon the other laws, relating to

to pensions. This Second Section of the Act of 1840, July 9 th is merely directory , as to where how an Executor shall dispose of a Pension, after her death, in a case where she has left children . But can this Act absolve the Government from paying to the representatives of a deceased widow, the pension due to her, at the time of her death? Certainly not as it seems to me. The decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, may be wrong. But whether right or wrong, it has nothing to do with this case. J. R.

Mary Walker, mrs of Wm
Map-
Acc 7 July 1858 Ad 7. 6 mo Adp & 1 yr Adp & etc. $278.61 from 10 th Mch 1856 to 10 th Dec 1858-
Payable to Gen P. Walker, Exr-
See also to Alex & Roy Pissint

Pension Office Jan'y 10. 1851-
Sir: The enclosed copy of my letter to Gen. I
9.16 2/3  6 54.98
18.16 2/3  8 145.30 2/3 9.08 2.59  156.97 60.00 6.66  223.63 54.98  278.61

Home of Representatives
Sept 3 1850
J. L. Edmunds Esq 60m d of Penniens
Sir
Please to allow Alexander Ray Esq to examine the papers, in your office, which were filed there by me, some years ago, in favor of the application of Mary Walker of Lenox Berkshire County Massachusetts the widow of William Walker late of said Lenox who was a sergeant (I think) in the Revolutionary war. under the act of 7 th July 1838 I believe.
Mr Ray will pay attention to the case, and I believe it will be found to come under the principle of recent decisions.
May I request immediate attention to this case of convenience to you. It is a case in which I take a special interest as it has been entrusted to me, and I fear I have neglected it.
With much respect
your obedient servant
Julius Rockwell

Washington Sep. 4. 1857.
Sir,
I herewith enclose you, a letter from the Hon. Julius Rockwell of Mass. requesting your permission to allow me to examine the declaration and papers filed by him, in the case of Mary Walker do. lat of Mass.
I understand from Mr Rockwell, when the case in question was first presented, the evidence of service, or the proof of marriage was insufficient to grant a pension to the widow under act of July 1838. Subsequently, however, additional evidence, or proof, was presented, and deemed sufficient, but before the certificate issued the applicant died; and left no child or children. The pension under the then existing decision was not granted, to the Ex: or admin rs . Under a late decision of the Secretary of the Interior, certificates have issued in like cases. If this be the ground as I learn from Mr Rockwell, why the pension was not granted, it will not be necessary for me to look into the papers of Mr Walker. But have respectfully to request the case may be examined, and if found to be as supposed, that a certificate may issue according to the evidence filed.
You will perceive by Mr Rockwell's letter he requests your "immediate attention"
I remain your mus. serv t Alv. N. Ay
J. L. Edwards Esq. Com r of Pensions

Washington Sept 9/53.
Hon. L. P. Waldo Comm r of Pensions Sir
Your letter of the 25 June last. in the case of Mary Walker dec d . late of Massachusetts widow of William pensioned under act 1838. escaped my notice until this moment.
I find your examiner has made two errors, or slate-ments, in his letter, which I must endeavor to appear to your satisfaction, & in applicant's favor,
First. William Walker, father of the applicant, was pensioned under act 7 June 1837. his child or children has clearly a right (if I understand any thing about pension laws) to any un-adjusted claim, or a balance due, as a surviving child in right of the parent . Such heretofore has not only been the law, but the practice of your office.
If William P. Walker the son of the husband, but not of the mother, is cut off, by any decision from the's any mass or arrear, in right of the widow of his father, it cannot apply to the son in right of his own father under act 1837.
Your examiner seems to doubt, if the claimant must now be allowed for more than the year, service

The Order Book, and other proofs filed in the case of Lewis Walker, of the evidence of her husband's service as Adjutant for six months in 1775. and Sub. & Adj. for 12 months in 1776 in Colonel Patton's Infan. Regt: admit of no such conclusion.
See Commission Edward letter to the Hon. J. Rockwell Feb. 19. 1844. and the almanac by Commission Heath in 1857. Also I asked for, a re-adjustment of the rate of pay per month. for the service already admitted. equal . to the uniform practice of your Office. in similar cases .
The application is now renewed. under act. 7 June 1837. in the name of William Walker. adf. & Sub. & Adj. in right of the son. and only surviving child.
I remain very
respectfully
Yours & Sir
Alex. Ray

Washington
March 26. /53
L. P. Waldo Esq. Comr of Pensions Sir
In the case of Mary Walker. act 38. Major. Madon of William, You admitted, in your letter Febry 19. 1844 the service of her husband " Adjutant for six months in 1775. and Lieutenant and Adjutant for Twelve months in 1776. "
In an adjustment and allowance of the widow's claim some short time back on my application in her behalf, the rate of allowance was not rightfully calculated. After the Certificate was issued, I forwarded it to the party. Hoping it would be in my power to prove further service, and then make an application for a correction of the error in the calculation.
Having failed to obtain further evidence of service, now make application for a proper computation of pension, ac- cording to the pay, and established practice of the Office. Adjutants having no rank in the line , are, and have been allowed at the rate of 40 $ per Mth. or at the rate of $480 per annum.
We find as early as Sep 19. 1776. the following "Resolved," "That the Adjutants of Regiments in the Continental Army be allowed the pay and ration of a Captain, & have the rank of Lieutenant."

I claim under the practice of Genl. Meigs. and allowance in the case of Henry Walker, at the rate of $480 pr. annum.
I have the honor to be your En Servt Alex. Ray

copy of William Mary Walter ass Moss
Also Ray

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Hampshire ss.
Probate Office Jan. 18. 1851
I hereby certify that on the sixth day of December 1831 the last will and Testament of of Hon William Walker late of Senox in the County of Berkshire deceased, was duly proved at a Court of Probate held at Northampton in the County of Hampshire that Hon William P. Walker was duly appointed Executor of said Will and gave bond for the faithful performance of said trust and that he is still fully authorized to act in said capacity.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & seal of Office.
Sam d D. Lyman Register of Probate

Mary Walker died 10 Dec 1838 Aged 82
Massachusetts.
Army of New England
Also Mary
he died 31 Dec 1831 she died 10 Dec 1838

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Hampshire ss. Probate Office Jan y 1 - 1851
I hereby certify that William P. Walker of Lenox in the County of Berkshire was on the 5 th day of February, 1839 duly appointed Executor of the last Will & Testament of Mary Walker late of said Lenox deceased, testate, and that he gave bond according to law for the faithful performance of said trust and is still fully authorized to act in said Capacity
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and Seal of Office
Sam l D. Lyman Register of Probate

House of Representatives
Dec- 14. 1844.
My dear Sir
In the case of Mary Walker late of Lenox Massachusetts, I have in the enclosed paper set forth the reasons, why as it seems to me the her Executor is entitled to the Certificate, to which she was entitled at the time of her death. I take liberty to send it to you, to be read by you at your leisure, after which I will seek an interview with you on the subject.
Very respectfully your obedient servant
J. L. Edmands Esq. Committee of Penury.
Julius Rockwell

Foot. Exr. of John Knowles. 4 th Mercantile Reports—
Assumpsit to recover money paid to the defendant by the United States, as part of the pension granted to Prudence Foot, the plaintiff's testatrix—
The case was submitted to the Court on the following facts; A pension was granted to the testatrix, as the widow of her first husband, James Knowles, conformably to the third section of the act of Congress, passed on the 4 th of July 1836, and the act explanatory thereof, passed on the 3 rd March 1837— The pension certificate was issued to her from the war department, August 21 st 1839, stating that she was entitled to receive $204.19 per annum, commencing March 4 th 1837, and to continue while she remained unmarried. The testatrix died on the 17 th of August 1839, leaving a will which has been duly proved and allowed, and by which she bequeathed her pension to the plaintiff and others, giving no part of it to the defendant. She left two children of her first marriage, of whom the defendant was one, and also two children of her last marriage. The defendant received one fourth part of the amount of said pension under the orders of the officers of the United States, who

had charge of the matter of pensions and directed it to be paid to the four children of the testatrix - Defendant to be defaulted, if the action can be maintained, otherwise, the plaintiff to become non suit - Opinion of the Court by Dewey Justice -
The Plaintiff, in his capacity of executor of the will of Prudence Took, seeks to recover of the defendant certain money received by him from the United States, under the pension laws - which money the Plf. alleges was received to the use of the estate of his testatrix, and ought to be paid to him as her legal representative - By a statute of the United States, passed June 7 th 1832 pensions were granted to certain surviving officers and soldiers, who served during the war of the revolution - and by the act of July 4 th 1836, and an explanatory act of March 3 rd 1837, the widows of such officers and soldiers whose marriage took place before the expiration of their service, and who were widows at the time of the passing of the act of June 7 th 1832 were entitled to receive, during the time they remained unmarried, the annuity or pension which would have been allowed to their husbands, if living at the time the said act was passed; and the payment of said pensions was to be made from March 4 th 1831 - The testatrix as the widow of James Knowles, filed her application,

for a pension under the provisions of the act above stated, accompanied with the proper evidence to show to the War Department that she was legally entitled to the same; which evidence was deemed satisfactory by that Department. The official certificate of the Secretary of War, certifying that the said Prudence Foot had been placed on the pension list, and was duly entitled to receive a pension from March 11 th 1831, bears date August 21 st 1831 which was four days after the decease of Mrs Foot. This fact being made known to the Commissioners of Pensions, he, under orders from the War Department, directed the paying agent of the United States to pay the amount, stated in said certificate to be due and payable to Mrs Foot in equal shares to her four children, of whom the defendant was one. The plaintiff insists that the sum thus paid by the United States was properly a part of the estate of the testatrix - that it was the proceeds of an annuity or pension allowed her by the government of the United States, that the fact of her legal right to have received such pension is established by the pension certificate, and that the amount received thereon should go into the hands of her executor, to be distributed or disposed of as a part of her estate. And this seems the proper view of the matter, unless the objections urged by the defendant shall be

found of so controlling and decisive a character as to justify the defendant in retaining that portion of the money received by him. The leading objection we understand to be, that upon a proper construction of the act of 1836, in the event of the decease of a widow thus entitled to receive a pension, before actually receiving the money due her for an antecedent period, the right to the same vests in her children and not in her legal representative. It was attempted to maintain this position by the provision in sect 4 of the statute of June 7 th 1832, that in case of the death of any person, entitled to a pension under said act, between the time of the semi annual payments directed by said act, "the proportion of the amount of pay, which shall accrue between the last preceding semi-annual payment, and the death of such person, shall be paid to his widow, or, if he leave no widow, to his children." This provision, it will be seen, applies, in terms only to the payment of pension money accruing after the last preceding semi-annual payment, and can in no case exceed six months. The argument is however, that from the general analogy of the two cases, the rule thus prescribed in the statute of 1832 should be held to apply to cases under the statute of 1836. But the acts of 1836 and 1837 have no such provision, nor any allusion to it. It might have been more conformable to the general course of legislation on this subject, thus to have provided in those acts; but not having been so enacted, as the widow of ...

the former provision, bearing on a different state of things, cannot have any controlling influence in deciding whose was the property in the pension money due to the testatrix. The whole provision of the statute directly bearing on the question before is that contained in the third section of the act of 1836, in these words. "If any person, who served in the war of the revolution, in the manner specified in the act passed June 7 th 1822, have died, leaving a widow whose marriage took place before the expiration of the last period of his service, such widow shall be entitled to receive, during the time she may remain unmarried, the annuity or pension which might have been allowed to her husband by virtue of the act aforesaid, if living, at the time it was passed." By force of this act, the pension in such case is to enure to the widow, and the right to receive any money due her on the same would seem to vest in her as a part of her estate, to the extent of the entire amount accruing on the same prior to her death, certainly as to all that part falling due prior to the last semi-annual pay day. It is then further objected, that by the act of 1836, sect 4 it is provided, "that any pledge, sale, assignment or other transfer of any right claim or interest in any money granted by this act

shall be utterly void and of no effect" - and it is argued that this provision ought to defeat the right of the plaintiff to recover in this case. It seems to us, however that this provision was solely intended to secure the pension for the personal benefit of the pensioner, and to place them beyond the reach of those who might improperly influence them to alienate the bounty of the government. But the present plaintiff places his right to recover upon no title derived through any pledge, assignment, or transfer. If he has any legal claim, it is as the representative of the pensioner herself, and to reduce the same to possession as her estate. Nor is there any suggestion, that a recovery here is sought for at the instance or for the benefit of the creditors of the pensioner. It was assumed in the argument, and seems to be conceded, that the estate of the testatrix is a solvent estate, independent of any recovery in the present action - and the only matter in controversy is, whether the pension money in question is to be collected and distributed as a part of her estate, or vests directly in her children, to the exclusion of the right of the executor to administer the same. It is also further objected that the money in controversy was paid over to the defendant under the order of the proper officer represent

ing the United States, and that considering the nature of the demand, and the source whence the money was received, it should not be here questioned but that it was properly received by the defendant, for his own use — If this were an attempt to bring in question an adjudication of the war department as to the person originally entitled to the pension, or, in other words, in whose favor the pension certificate ought to have issued originally the objection would certainly have great weight, and would probably be decisive. But the case does not present the question in that aspect. It was held by the war department, and is conceded here by all parties, that the testatrix was the person originally entitled to the pension money. She had properly presented her claim to it, and furnished the necessary evidence to sustain her claim — all which is shown by the pension certificate. Under these circumstances we think the right to receive the arrearages attached to her estate, and that the same was in her hands in the hands of her legal representatives. The defendant received no pension certificate, nor was his name borne on the roll of pensioners. The money that he received was a portion of the pension money due to the testatrix and his only ground of demanding payment

to himself was, that he was one of the four heirs at law of the testatrix. He must, therefore, have received the money under her original right, and must hold it subject to the proper claims of any other person who can establish a better title to it. Suppose the money to have been received by some person who falsely claimed to have taken letters of administration upon the estate of Mrs. Foot, and upon whose application the pension department had ordered the money to be paid to him, would it be any defence to an action by a lawful administrator against him to recover back the money, that he received it by order of the pension department? It is true that the case supposed is one of fraud in procuring the payment of the money, and therefore differs from the present case, where the payment appears to have been made with a knowledge of the real facts, and the only wrong done, if any, was that a party demanded the money who was not legally entitled thereto. I put the supposed case, merely to illustrate the principle, and to show that cases may occur, where the Court would look into the merits of the case and ascertain the legal rights of the parties, and not be estopped from so doing merely because the pension department had directed the money to be paid to the party from whom it was sought to be recovered.
The application of a principle somewhat analogous may be found in various cases of payments made by the United States to claimants under us one or...

the Spanish treaty, and also under the French treaty making provision for damages sustained by our citizens, and for which the governments of Spain and France were responsible. After the money had been paid by the United States to the persons specified in the awards of the commissioners as entitled to recover the same, questions have arisen between those who received the money and third persons, as to the right to retain such money. Conflicting claims have been set up, founded on the allegation that the property, for which compensation had thus been made, was in fact in another person than the individual specified in the list of those to whom the money was awarded. [And in such cases, the rule adopted has been, that the fact of receiving the money from the United States, by the party to whom it was ordered to be paid, was not conclusive in his favor, but that it was still open to the judicial tribunals to decide in  to whom, in fact, was the legal title in the property for which compensation had been awarded, and to whom the money rightfully belonged. Conegy v. Basse 1. Pet. R 193 - Freball v. Bache 14 Pet. R 95. in See

v. Thorndike. 2 Mch. R. 313.
The Court are of opinion that none of the objections urged by the defendant can avail him, or will entitle him to withhold the money demanded by the Plaintiff in his capacity of executor of Mrs. Foot.
Defendant. Defaulted.
Berkshire. September Term 1842.
Briggs & Lanchton for Plaintiff—
Wells & Rockwell for Defendant

3187 Mass. Nov 7 7 July 1838.
Hon. Jas. E. Stuart Henry Simonds Washington D.C.
FREE

To Hon. J. L. Edwards Esq
(Dear Sir -
I enclose you an application for a pension by Mrs Mary Walker of this town. - We are unfortunate in not finding any one alive by whom to prove the services of her late Husband Judge Walker deceased. - He was attached to the Continental army, and probably some records at the War Office may throw light upon the subject. The Ordinaly books of Judge Walker are in the hands of her sons the Hon. William P Walker of this town. - He preserves them with great care, but if they should be required as proof in the application they can be forwarded to your department. - If a certificate is granted please direct it to me at Lenox Mass.
Most respectfully
your friend
Henry W Bishop
Lenox Nov. 12. 1838

7.50 6. - 13.50 1.50 15.00
Mary Walker's Will - Copy Feb. 5 - 1830
Mary Walker no. 318

In the fear of God. Amen
Be it remembered that I Mary Walker of Lenox in the County of Berkshire & Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Widow of the late Hon. William Walker, deceased, being of sound mind and memory, do make ordain & establish this will as my last Will & Testament, —
First I direct my Executor to pay all my debts and funeral expenses & erect at my grave Suitable grave Stones —
To Mrs Clarinda Prentice near friend & niece, & wife of the Rev. Charles Prentice, I bequeath my great Bible, which has been procured in exchange for a Hebrew Bible, which belonged to my first husband Rev Elisha Fannin deceased —
To my nieces, Mary Lyman of Andover in the State of Ohio, Anna Ginnel of Adams in the County of Jefferson & State of New York and Lydia Owen of said Andover I give & bequeath to each one silver table Spoon, marked M. P. said Spoons were my property before my intermarriage with my late deceased husband Hon William Walker, deceased.
To my nephew Myron Hutchinson of Salisbury in the State of Connecticut I give & bequeath my red & white bed & window curtains, my oval table, my looking Glass, & my high case of drawers & red and white bed spread all of which were mine before my intermarriage with my late husband —
To Mrs Lucy Walker wife of the Hon. William P. Walker I bequeath my large damask table cloth —
To Henry W. Bishop Esq. my adopted son, I bequeath my silver sugar tongs
To Mrs Sarah Worthington — wife of Dr Charles Worthington I bequeath all my wearing apparel & the residue of my household furniture — To retain so much thereof as she chooses to her own use & the residue thereof to be given by her to the poor at her own discretion — Also bequeath to said Sarah one half of the residue of my property bequeathed me by her father my late husband.

To the Hon. William P. Walker son of my said late husband I give, devise and bequeath all the rest residue of my property real or personal, goods, chattels rights or credits, to him his heirs & assigns forever whom I appoint Executor of this Will.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand & Seal this Eighteenth day of January A.D. 1833.
Signed, sealed, published pronounced and declared by the said Mary Walker to be her last Will & Testament in our presence, who in her presence & in presence of each other have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses at her request, George Walker
Mary Walker & Seal
Remanton Osborne
Ruby Williams

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
HAMPSHIRE ss.
TO ALL UNTO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME,
GREETING.
KNOW YE THAT, At a Court of Probate holden at Northampton in and for said county, on the first Tuesday in February — A. D. 1839 — the instrument hereto annexed, having been duly presented for probate as the last will and testament of Mary Walker — late of Lenox in the county, of Berkshire deceased, and it being made to appear, that notice has been given to all persons interested, and no objection being now made to the probate of the same; and it being also made evident by the oath of one witness — thereto subscribed, that said instrument was legally executed, and that said testatrix was, at the time thereof, of sound and disposing mind;
It appearing also that the Judge of Probate for said County of Berkshire is executor residuary legatee in said will I do therefore approve and allow the said instrument as the last will and testament of the before named deceased, and decree that it — have full force and effect as such, agreeably to the laws of the Commonwealth aforesaid; and that the execution of said last will and testament, and the administration of the estate of said deceased, whereof he died seized and possessed, be granted and committed to Hon. William P. Walker the executor therein named, he giving bond according to law for the faithful discharge of said trust.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office, this fifth day of February A. D. 1839
Thomas Conkey Judge of Probate.
A true copy of said Will & the probate thereof Attest Samuel H. Lyman Register