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

SERVICE
NUMBER
86
Dener, George Frederick Christiana
W. 8667 B.L.W. 24.168-160-55
CONTENTS

Feb 11 2 like Georgia the dec can
Col. John L. H. Sec. War for Genl. of Divisions March 19/52
Reg. no. 161478
5989 South Carolina Christiana Dener widow of George Dener SC who served in the Revolutionary
war, as a priv. & Lieut.
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 236 Dollars 63 Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1848.
Certificate of Pension issued the 14th day of Sept. 1852 and sent to
M Thompson Kient
Recorded on Roll of Pensioners under act February 2, 1848, Page 309 Vol. 2
Transferred 1833, by affidavit in favor of of Andrew
Report Sec. War. July 27, 1852
9. 5989 in favor

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

161-478 - Act May 3 38
June 23 33
Christiana Dene 89 years old widow of George F. Dene lieutenant
J. C. Knapp
Rev
Revolutionary
24 16
Pensioner
Act 1800 ac. Apr. 16 1856,
S. C. July 48 - B. D. M.
W. B. Fickling Esq. Charleston, S. Carolina
Vol. D. 58. —

State of South Carolina } On this 14 th day of August District of Charleston } 1838. personally appeared
before the undersigned Mrs. Christiana Dever aged 72 years, and a resident of the City of Charleston who being duly sworn according to Law Doth on her Oath make the following declaration in order to be entitled to the provision made by the act of Congress passed July 7 th 1838, entitled "An act granting half pay and pensions to certain Widows". That, she was married to George Frederick Dever who was during the War of the Revolution first enrolled as she has frequently heard her Husband enroll, and as Deponent believes in a Corps called the Light Infantry of Charleston commanded by Captain Proleau in the year 1776, and served in same up to the Surrender of Charleston in May 1780. Deponent saith, that during this period, he served for more than 12 months in under arms with the rank of Lieutenant in said Corps, and in actual service; Deponent saith that, while he was so a Lieut in said Company he served at the Battles of Beaufort, Stono, and Savannah in 1779 and at the Siege of Charleston in May 1780, and that, at the Surrender of said City he was while so a Lieutenant and in under arms taken prisoner and returned so a prisoner on parole for more than 12 months. Deponent saith, that, after being so a prisoner in said City to the length of 12 months he escaped to the Camp of Marion some miles from the City, and after being there some time it was proposed and so carried into effect, to reorganize the German Fusilier Company and said G. F. Dever was commissioned a Lieutenant in same, and Deponent saith that, he held the said rank of Lieutenant

in said Corps of "German Fusiliers" ( Danish Troops, being then Captains) from the 1 st September 1782, the period of the reorganisation of the Corps as aforesaid until September 1783, and for many years afterwards, and in this way Deponent saith her husband the aforesaid George Frederick Dener served under arms more than two years during the war of the Revolution as aforesaid.
Deponent further saith that she was married to the said George Frederick Dener on the 15 day of March Seventeen hundred and eighty seven the same being regularly registered in her bible, and that her husband the aforesaid G F Dener died on the 27 th July 1795 that she was not married to him prior to his leaving his service, but the mar- riage took place previous to the 1 st January 1794 by at the time above stated, and that she is now a widow in limited circumstances having never since her marriage
Sworn to and subscribed before me the day and year above written, and I also certify the credibility of the affiant, the word "Danish" in the first line duly authenticated
Christiana Dener
W. D. D. Judge J. G.

161-478
Exparte
Christiana Dener
Widow of George F. Dener Lieutenant in "The German Fusileers Company" during The Revolutionary War.
Application for Land Warrant.

State of South Carolina Charleston District
On this Twenty Ninth day of May Anno Domini Eighteen hundred and fifty five personally appeared before me a Magistrate within and for the District and State aforesaid Christiana Dener aged Eighty nine years a resident of Charleston in the State aforesaid who being duly sworn according to Law declares that she is the widow of George F. Dener deceased who was a private and Lieutenant in the German Fusileers Company during the war of the Revolution - that she was married to the said George F. Dener in Charleston by the Reverend Nicholas Martin some time about the year 1786, that her name before her said marriage was Christiana Williman, that her said husband died somewhere in the year 1799 and that she is now a widow
She further states that she has been receiving a pension from the United States government as the widow of the said George F. Dener since the 14 th September A.D 1852 and for further proofs refers to her papers now on file in the Pension Office and recorded on the Roll of Pensioners under the Act of Congress of February 2 nd 1848, Volume 2 nd page 309
She makes this Declaration for the purpose of obtaining the Bounty Land to which she may be entitled under the "Act approved March 3 rd 1855"
Christiana Dener

We John W Doniphan and Henry C. Baker Residents of Charleston in the State of South Carolina upon our oaths declare that the foregoing declaration was signed and acknowledged by Mrs Christiana Dener in our presence; and that we believe from the appearance and statements of the applicant, that she is the identical person she represents herself to be
John W Doniphan Henry C. Baker
The foregoing declaration and affidavit were sworn to and subscribed in my before me on the day and year above written and I certify that I know the affiants to be credible persons, that the claimant is the person she represents herself to be and that I have no interest in this claim
Chas. H. Atkinson Magistrate

State of South Carolina Charleston District -
I Daniel Horbeck Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions in and for the district and State aforesaid do hereby certify that Charles H. Atason Esquire before whom the foregoing declaration and affidavit were taken was at the date thereof a Magistrate for the District and State aforesaid who had been duly appointed and qualified and had signed the Roll kept according to law in my office -
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office at Charleston
on the Thirtieth day of May in the Year of our Lord One thousand Eight hundred and fifty five and in the Seventy Ninth Year of the Sovereignty and Independence of the United States of America -
Daniel Horbeck Clerk

Affidavits
Lost at Mrs Conway
✓

State of South Carolina } 3 — City of Charleston — } 3
Personally appeared Edmund Cranston who being sworn says that he is the Grandson of Mrs Christiana Dener, who is an applicant for a Pension as the widow of Lieutenant George P Dener. This Deponent is thirty seven years old, that he was born in his Grandmother's house situated in Mazyck Street which was left to her by her husband Mr George P Dener, that he has been living with her all his life and still continues to do so. That from his earliest recollections he distinctly remembers an old oil painting that has hung up in the house and still remains there, which he has always understood to be the Portrait of his Grandfather George P Dener; said Portrait is an old oil painting about three feet square set in a gilt frame and represents a person in Military Uniform with an Epaulette on the left shoulder, with a Scarlet sash, and a Gorget on the breast, the Hilt of the Sword apparent, the Coat of Blue color with red facings, being as this Deponent is informed the Uniform of the German Fusilier Company of that day.
Sworn to before me this 21st Day of October A D 1857.
Edward S Courtenay Notary Public
Edmund Cranston
Charleston Oct 23 d 1857
I have known Mr Edmund Cranston whose name appears above for many years. He is a Gentleman of character & high respectability and on whose statements I would place the most implicit confidence.
Edward S Courtenay

Charleston S. Ca August 27 th 1838.
Lutheran Church of German Protestants.
The following extracts are furnished from the Records of this Church, viz,
"Married on the 15 th of March 1787, by the Rev d Mr J. N. Martin, George H. Dener to Christina Speidel."
"George Dener was interred in the Cemetery of the Lutheran Church on the 27 th July 1795." the Rev d John C. Haber was then the Pastor of the Church.
I certify the above to be correct.
Sworn to before me this 14 day of September 1838 and I also certify the credibility of the affiant Plantville not Public Notary M d and Dist So a
Jacob S. Mintzing. President.

Rev WIDOW, &c.
File No.
8667
Christiana Dener
Wid
George F. Dener
Great Rev. War
Act:
February 2 d
1848.
Index:—Vol.
A
, Page
175
[Arrangement of 1870.]

9.275 South Carolina Christiana Dener widow of George L. who was a Priv. & Lieut. in the Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of 250 Dollars 65 Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1843.
Certificate of Pension issued the 14 th day of Sept. '52 and sent to
M. Thompson Prest.
[Acts of March 3, 1843, & June 17, 1844.]
Recorded in Book CH Vol. 2 - Page 165

11.386
South Carolina
Christiana Dener
widow of George J. who died on the 1795
of in the State of who was a Priv of the St. commanded by Captain of the commanded by in the
line for Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll of Charleston at the rate of 236 Dollars 65 Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1836.
Certificate of Pension issued the 14 day of Feb: 52 and Supt to M Thompson Recd.
Arrears to the 4th of Semi-annual allowance ending
Revolutionary Claim, Act July 7, 1838.
Recorded By R. McKee Clerk. Vol. 1 Page 305

No 3070
Chushawa Dener.
11th 6th 6th S. House
June 4 '47
11th Nathan Drake
July 24 '47
11th 6th 6th S. House Sept.
10th 1847
11th 6th Mackay
Sept 13 '48
to Hon. D. Wallace 13 Sept 1850
M. Thompson 27 Nov 1850
Q 55 - 38
del in Thompson Nov. 23/51
To same June 9/52
1st to 4th Astoria June 18/52
del in Thompson Sept 8/52 ✓

North Platte Nebraska July 1838 at 7 miles S. of Plantville 10 miles S. of North Platte

W
L. P. Waldo Esq Commissioner of Peace Washington D.C.

Rev. Dr. J. H. Strub, D.C.
Boyle
24, 168
See Aug

Christina L. C. Agnew
Christiana Dorr, in dower of Geo. French, who was a son of Lieut. L. C. Dorr M c . Gernon Finsbury.
Ad 3 months private $10.00 " 17 mo Lieut. 226.65 $236.65
Net July 1, 1838, ye ye
Car March 4, 1836
M c . Thompson,
Present

South Carolina } office Court Com-pleas @ District of Charleston } Charleston
I Charles C Strohecker Clerk of the Court of Common pleas, for Charleston Dist. S.C. do hereby Certify that Patrick Cantwell is a magistrate, and that the signatures to the annexed papers purporting to be his are genuine. Further Certify that the witnesses to this case namely Messrs John Cart. John Strobel Joseph Brighton, Jacob F. McIntire, Wm Purse & M c Dermot Fisher & Godfrey are respectable and entitled to credit, In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal of office this 2 day of November 1830
Charles C Strohecker
Clerk of the Court of Common pleas for Charleston Dist. S.C.

State of South Carolina } On this 30 th day of October, District of Charleston } 1838 personally appeared before
the undersigned Mr Wm Purse aged 76 years a resident of Charleston & a Revolutionary pensioner. Who being duly sworn deposeth, That he was acquainted with Geo. F. Denis during the war of the Revolution, that he remembers him as wearing the uniform of "the German Fusiliers," as a Lieutenant, and has every reason to believe he served in this company during the war, at least 12 months, and with the rank of Lieutenant. Depositor saith he has always heard Mr (Denis said G. F. Denis's widow. (now an applicant for a pension). Spoken of as a respectable married lady of excellent character -
Sworn to and subscribed before me This day and year above written and I also certify the respectability of the applicant Plantersville not Pub & De bond Dist
Wm Purse

State of South Carolina District of Charleston } on this 14 th day of August 1838. Personally appeared before the undersigned, Captain John Strobel aged 64 years and a resident of the City of Charleston, who being duly sworn according to Law, Deposes, that he was well acquainted with the late George Friedrick Dener, formerly of the City of Charleston deceased, and is well acquainted with his widow who now applies for a pension, namely Mrs Chris- tiana Dener of said Charleston, Deposes, saith, that, he has reason to believe, and has no doubt of the fact, (being acquainted with the said Dener and his family from his Deponents infancy) that, the said George Friedrick Dener at the Comm- encement of the Revolution joined a Corps called the Charleston Light Infantry, and was commanded by Captain Pringle, and served in same for two years during the war of the Revolution, and saith he believes and has no doubt, that, he held the rank of a Lieutenant in this Corps for 12 months previous to the surrender of Charleston in May 1780, and that, it was while he was so an officer he served at Port Royal, Stono, Savannah, and at the Siege of Charleston. Deponent saith he heard, & always believed it, that, said Dener became a prisoner to the British at the fall of Char- leston and remained so a prisoner (being taken while under arms) for 12 months, he then as this Deponent always heard and believes made his way to Marion's Camp, and about the month of Septem- ber 1782, the "German Fusilier" Company

was there re-organised, and Deponent's father Daniel Strobel was commissioned Captain, and said G. F. Dener then and there made Lieutenant, in same, Depo- -nent saith, said Dener held this rank of Lieutenant from said month of September 1782 until the month of September 1783 & for many years thereafter Deponent saith that, he joined said Corps in 1791, and held a Commission in same either as a Lieutenant or Captain for nearly 14 years and is therefore well acquainted with the history of the Company. Deponent further saith he was present at the marriage of G. F. Dener to said Christiana Dener, in the year 1787, and that, said G. F. Dener died in the year 179 5 , and that, said Christiana, has remained a widow ever since, always maintaining an respectable character.
Sworn to and subscribed before me the day and year above written & also Certify the Credibility of the affiant (altering 1797 to 1795. first, in the 17 line)
Daniel Strobel
Antioch Church Park & St. John Charleston Dist. South Carolina

State of South Carolina on this 27 day of October District of Charleston } 1838 personally appeared before the undersigned Mrs Sarah Godfrey aged 71 years a resident of Charleston, who being duly sworn according to Law, Deposeth, that she remembers well the late George Fredk Dener during the war of the Revolution, as being in the "German Fusilier" Company as an officer and she has reason to believe a Lieutenant & that, he served in same previous to the fall of Charleston one year, and that, at the surren- der of same she has reason to believe he was among those who were taken prisoners bearing arms and that, he remained so a prisoner 12 months to the enemy Dependent Saith she has every reason to believe that, the present Mrs Christiana Dener is his widow, and that, she was married to the said Geo. Fredrick Dener in the year 1787. and that, said George died in the year 1795 5 and that, said Christiana is a lady of respectability Charleston whose statements are entitled to credit, sworn to and subscribed before me this day and year above written & I also certify the credibility of the affiant "1747" being first altered to "1795", 20 lines.
Sarah Godfrey
Pl A notary Public S.W. for Charleston Dist So. C.

State of South Carolina on this 1 st day of District of Charleston November  October 1838 personally
appeared before the undersigned Mrs. Barbara Gruber aged 78 years a resident of Charleston who being duly sworn deposes, that she was acquainted with George Frederick Dener late of Charleston in? that she knows him during the war of the Revolution as an officer and as she believes a Lieutenant in "the Georgia Fusilier Company" that Deponent lived in Charleston during said period both before and after the siege and that, her belief is that she knew him to be so an officer for more than one year and it may be two. but she cannot speak positively as to the period of his service, but remembers him well during the war. Deponent saith, she has always heard of his widow the present Mrs. Christiana Dener, as being a respectable married lady whose statements are entitled to credit, and Dept saith she has reason to believe said Geo- Frederick Dener was married to S. Christiana Dener in the year 1787 and that said George Frederick died in the year 1795
Sworn to and subscribed before me the day & year above written & also certify the credibility of the affiant
AB Gruber
P. Cantrell not pub & Rev ms P. Cantrell

am Ober am Unter

Mr Dener Mr Dighton

State of South Carolina } On this 1 st day of November District of Charleston } 1838 Personally appeared
before the undersigned, M c Joseph Righton aged 76 and a resident of Charleston who being duly sworn according to Law Deposeth, that, he remembers to have seen George Bedenham during the War of the Revolution under arms serving in the "German Fusiliers", and Deponent with him has reason to believe he served during said War 12 months, previous to the fall of Charleston in May 1780, and that, when the City surrendered Deponent has reason to believe he was made a prisoner while under arms and detained by the enemy 12 months, and Deponent remembers well that, he wore the uniform of an officer in said "German Fusilier Company", but Deponent cannot now bring to his recollection whether he was an officer before the surrender of the City, as he has no doubt he was. Shortly after that event, Deponent with him has every reason to believe said G. Bedenham was married to said Christiana Bedenham in the year 1787. and that said G. Bedenham died in the year 1795. and that said Christiana is his widow, and that her statements are entitled to credit.
Sworn to & subscribed before me this day & year above written & sealed Certify the Credibility of the affiant P. G. G. Wells Not Pub & Quyn 0 th Dec 20 th 1838
J. S. Righton

Wm Denner Wm Cart
3870
Christiana Denner widow of George Frederick Denner abt July 1838 S.C.

State of South Carolina } On this 13 th day of September District of Charleston } 1838 personally appeared before the undersigned John Cart aged 76 years a resident of Charleston and a Revolutionary pensioner who being duly sworn Deposeth, that he was person- ally acquainted with George Frederick (Dever during the war of the Revolution, and subsequent- ly for the forty years of said (Dever. and of (Deponent were on terms of intimacy. (Deponent further that said G. F. (Dever was a commissioned officer and as he believes a Lieutenant during said war, and served with this rank for two years and more, to wit from the year 1779 to the end of the war in April 1783. (Deponent saith he said (Dever served in the German Infsiliers during this period, and that if he served in another company previously, he does not now recollect it. (Deponent further that he was a Lieutenant at the surrender of Charleston, and was made a prisoner while under arrest, and continued as a prisoner on parole for 12 months. (Dept. saith that after the evacuation of the City in December 1782 by the British said Corps was revived and said (Dever was commissioned in it, and remained an officer of it to the time of his death, in 1795. (Deponent saith he was a prisoner to the British also upon the surrender of Charleston in May 1780, and speaks of (Dever service and imprisonment from his personal knowledge. (Deponent further he has reason to believe said G. F. (Dever married Christina (Dever in 1787. That she is now his widow, and that her statements are entitled to full credit - Sworn to and subscribed before me this day and year above written & I do hereby certify the credibility of the affiant John Cart

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
BY HIS EXCELLENCY,
— J. H. Means —
GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN AND OVER THE STATE AFORESAID.
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME.
I know Ye That J. J. Sentell Esq whose signature appears to the annexed affidavit was at the time of signing the same and is now a Magistrate for Edgefield District in the State of South Carolina — And that Edward S. Courtenay Esq whose signature appears to the Oath of Edward Gantston also annexed was at the time of signing the same and is now a Notary Public for the City & District of Charleston in the State aforesaid THEREFORE, all due faith, credit, and authority is and ought to be had and given to his proceedings and certificates as such.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused to be affixed the seal of the State, in the City of Charleston, State aforesaid the Twenty fourth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Fifty One and in the Seventy Sixth year of the Independence of the United States of America.
J. H. Means By the Governor.
Benjamin Purry Secretary of State.

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

called the German Friendly Society which is also now in existence, and from which the said Mrs Christiana Dener in consequence of her husband having been a member at the time of his death receives a small annuity
Sworn to before me this twenty second day of October A D 1851.
J. J. Wentworth M. G. D.
John Strobel
Mayor's Office Charleston South Carolina Oct. 24. 1851
This will certify that I am acquainted (have been for many years past) with the above John Strobel - that he is a gentleman of character respectability & that every credit is to be given to his deposition as above
In witness my Hand & the seal of the City affixed the day & year above written
J. Christian Mayor
By the Mayor.
John R. Roden.
Clerk of Council.

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

who can be found. This Deponent is also acquainted with Mrs Christiana Dener who is a Lady of respectability now aged about 85 years, and has of ten heard of her husband from the old German settlers of this country who are now dead, and has no doubt whatever as to her right of Pension by being the widow of a Revolutionary Officer.
Given under my hand and Seal this twentieth day of October A D. 1857
Sam l H. Beck
Treasurer & Keeper of the Archives of the German Fus. Society & Co.
Many years since I gave a certificate by which Col Jacob Dass a comrade in company of George Dener obtained a Pension from the General Government. From my best recollection, it is my opinion that I have given certificates for others, whose names I do not now recollect.
Charleston October 20th 1857.
Sam l H. Beck
I hereby certify that Daniel Dörbeck a German whose name appears to the above certificate is a gentleman of high character and respectability in this community and that every credit is to be given to his statements.
Given under my hand at the City of Charleston State of South Carolina this 20th day of October A D. 1857.
R. B. Gist Judge of the United States for the District of South Carolina

Charleston April 8 th 1847
To the Commissioner of Pensions
Sir
I Christiana
Dener widow of George Frederic Dener deceased have employed Col. George Little of Raleigh to prosecute my pension claim which you will please report to him and oblige
Yours
Christiana Dener
J. R. Ratchford
H. D. Cranston
I hereby transfer to Nathan Lake & you all authority vested in me by the above writing, and respectfully submit the same to the consideration of Col. S. S. Edwards.
Yrs: Little

Know All Men By These Presents, That I, Christiana Dener of the City of Charleston in the State of South Carolina, hereby constitute and appoint George Little of Raleigh North Carolina my true and lawful Agent and Attorney, to prosecute my Claim for any amount of Revolutionary Pension, or increase of Pension that may be due; and I hereby authorize my said Agent to examine all the papers and documents in relation to said claim, on file in the Department at Washington City, or elsewhere; to file additional evidence or arguments; and to receive the Certificate which may be issued for said Claim, which Certificate I wish made payable to Edmund Crawford a resident of the City of Charleston, South Carolina to appoint one or more substitutes under him for the purposes herein expressed; and to do all things that I might or could do were I personally present. Hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said Attorney and Agent shall lawfully do in the premises.
Witness my hand and Seal this twelfth day of July Anno Domini 1857.
Signed and Sealed in the presence of Christiana Dener John Michel (S.S.) Notary Public

State of South Carolina } ss. City of Charleston }
On this Fourteenth day of July Anno Domini 1857, before me, the subscriber, a Justice of the Peace in and for the City aforesaid, personally appeared Christiana Dener, and acknowledged the foregoing Power of Attorney to be her act and deed, for the purposes therein mentioned.
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand the day and year aforesaid
Magistrate and Justice of the Peace John Reichel Notary Public.
State of South Carolina
Make Party 3 Henry Little
Mr Thompson Esq of Washington City to have and carry into effect all the powers therein expressed in the foregoing Power of Attorney - In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this 22 day of July 1857 - Witness W. White
Geo Little Seal
July 28 1857 John Reichel

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

I John Michel Magistrate & Justice of the Peace, in and for said City do hereby certify that Mrs Christiana Dener who executed the foregoing paper is a respectable resident of this City, and is, I believe, directly interested in said claim as therein set forth
John Michel
Justice of the Peace and Magistrate
I Daniel Norbeck Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of the City of Charleston and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that John Michel, before whom the foregoing papers were executed, was, at the date of the same, a Justice of the Peace in and for said City duly authorized by law to administer oaths; and the name thereunto subscribed is his signature.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my Official Seal this twelfth day of July Anno Domini 1857.
Danl Norbeck Clerk

Charleston S.C.
20 July 1839
Sir
I take the liberty of laying before you the annexed affidavit in the case of Mrs. Christiana Dener. and would respectfully refer to the previous affid t of the witness, as illustrating this.
I have the honor to remain Sir
Your most obedient and humble servant J. G. Paton
2
James L. Edwards Esq Commissioner of Pensions for for for

19 July 1839
Cassidy C Denen affid. John Cart

State of South Carolina District of Charleston
{ on this 19 th day of July 1839 Personally appeared
The undersigned Mr John Cart aged 78 a Resid t of Charleston and a revolutionary pensioner, who being duly sworn Deposeth. That, in reference to the Question put to him as to the treatment of prisoners belonging to the militia who fell into the hands of the British upon the surrender of Charleston in May 1780. That that for the first 2 or 3 months, they were treated with some indulgence, but limited to remain within the City. That after the lapse of the above time, the Loyalists demonstrated against the policy of permitting the "rebels" to be employed, to the detriment of themselves. - Whereupon orders were issued for the purpose of obstructing them in the pursuit of their business, avocation, or mode of making out a living, and a series of persecutions instituted with a view of inducing the prisoners of war to quit the American Congress, and join the enemy. Deponent saith he has every reason to believe that said George F. Dener (of the German Fusiliers) endured this description of trial, and remained faithful to the cause of the Revolution, to the end of the war, as set forth in his declaration, previous to being made in this case
John Cart
Sworn to and subscribed before me Monday 4 year above written
Plantwell
Not Pub & DW for
Charleston Dist of S.C.

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

I assent to the truth of every proposition you have thus laid down. You have not understood my argument: I have not maintained, as you seem to suppose, nor do I maintain, that there were "vested rights" to pensions, previous to the passage of a law or laws granting pensions.
I do maintain that the enactment of a law granting pensions, did, at the instant of of such enactment, vest rights in the class of persons enumerated in such law, which could not be divested.
I am sustained in this view by the opinion of the Attorney Genl. of 9 th June 1825, page 481, of document 55, in which he says in regard to the widow's right to a pension "It is a vested right—a vested and perfect right." This opinion is adopted and approved by another Attorney Genl. vide opinions of the Attorneys Genl. page 1013. At page 1101 of opinions of the Attorneys Genl. the Attorney Genl. says—"The right of the widow under the act is to be regarded as a vested interest accruing on the passage of the law." Same work, page 261, the Attorney Genl. says, that even "Congress cannot divest a vested right." I know full well, that pensions partake of the nature, and are in fact "donations and gratuities," and that, in this, as in all other cases, of donations and gratuities, Congress, the donor, had the

right to prescribe the manner in which these donations should be distributed. And what I said was; that when Congress devolved upon the Secretary the duty of executing the pension laws, they did not expect him to adopt a novel and arbitrary system of rules and regulations, subversive of the common law rules of evidence. I maintained and still maintain that Congress expected the Secretary to be governed in the adjudication of pension claims, by the same rules which prevail at law and equity in all judicial tribunals, as it regards the character and degree of evidence, necessary to establish any given fact.
I think this is a proposition quite too plain to be controverted.
This was my argument; and if I am right, the claim of Mrs. Bener has been established, by threefold more and better evidence than would be necessary to establish the same claim in any court of law or equity in this country.
In my printed argument of 15 th Dec. last, you will find the authorities abundantly sustaining me upon this point.
Unless you are more desirous from usage, principle, or policy, to reject than to admit just claims, I can see no motive for an exploration of the regions of the fine arts, or of a toilsome and

dangerous march to Savannah for mere inferences (for they amount to nothing more) to invalidate the testimony of the cloud of respectable witnesses in this case.
You must be hard run, nay driven to the very wall for a ground of objection to this claim when such expedients are resorted to for its rejection. You will find by the inclosed letter from Edward Cranston, a grandson of Mrs. Sener, that the result of your expedition will be as disastrous to you, as was the assault of the Americans upon that post, in the times that tried mens souls: But here the analogy ceases. They were actuated by brave and patriotic motives; and deserved a better fate.— Yours, I can regard in no other light, than as an attempt to evade the testimony of the above named witnesses, and indirectly to impeach their credibility. For I repeat what is too plain to be questioned; if the cloud of witnesses who have testified in support of the claim, are to be believed, the claim is legal and just, and must be admitted. If your object is to attack the witnesses, why not march boldly, instead of this insidious, circuitous manner to the assault? There is a degree of positiveness and certainty in the evidence before you, in this case, which all the negatives and inferences that human ingenuity could invent, cannot shake.
I have the honor to be W. Thompson Ever for Sener.

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

South Carolina { on this 24 day of July } District of Charleston { 1839 Personally appeared
Daniel Walbeck Esquire attorney at Law. Resident of Charleston. Who being sworn Deposeth, that, he is the keeper of the Records and treasurer of the German Fusilier Company and Society, and saith, that, the records of the Corps from 1779. to 1783 are not in his possession. nor does he know where they are. The general impression is that, they are lost. Saith he makes this declaration in reference to the claim of the widow of George Fredk. Dener and that, he has any information that, might be obtained from said record is in this manner not to be had.  Sworn to and subscribed before me This 24 day of July 1839 Plantersville not Pub & Qu for Dist  Daniel Walbeck Esq. Treasurer and Keeper of Records of German Fusilier Co. & Society
South Carolina { on this 24 th day of July 1839 } District of Charleston { Personally appeared George B.
Eckhardt Esq. aged 44, City attorney, residing in Charleston, who being sworn Deposeth, that, he has been a member of said German Fusilier Company since 1814 & Captain of it from 1820 to 1828, and that, it is his belief, and he believes the general opinion of Company members, that, the said Geo. F. Dener, was a member of the German Fusilier Company at the period of the Revolution and that, the records of the said Company from 1780. to a period subsequent to the peace of 1783 is lost, and are not forthcoming, and that, therefore any evidence deducible from them of revolutionary services are of course not to be had.  Sworn to & subscribed before me this day & year above written "1820" on 6 line, and the words "some time during" 9 th line first an interlined Plantersville, Not Pub & Qu for Charleston Dist S.C.  G. Eckhardt

Washington July 8 th 1872
Sir
I enclose herewith a power of attorney from Mrs Christiana Dener an applicant for pension from S.C. to Col Little of Raleigh N.C. who has transferred it to me with a request that I should prosecute the claim as agent, as I am informed the case has been before the Department many years & not being apprised of the objections against it I respectfully ask to be informed of its condition & what further evidence is required to complete the testimony about Little also request me to investigate the case of Mr Choate Recd of S.C. who made application a few years since for a pension but who has since died & left a widow may I also ask in this case that a copy of the last correspondence in this case be furnished, or that I may see the papers
Very Respectfully
Your obed t Servant N. Leake
Hon. J. L. Edwards Com r of Pensions

WASHINGTON, December 15, 1851.
HON. JAS. E. HEATH,
SIR:—I have the honor of your official communication of 25th ult., "in the case of Catharine Dener, widow of George Frederick," in which you say: "I find among them (the papers) no power of attorney appointing you to act in the matter," &c. I stand prepared to prove, that I exhibited an ample power of attorney from the claimant, executed substantially in the forms prescribed by your office, and which was duly filed therein, upon which I was permitted by the proper functionaries, to make a thorough examination of all the papers on file in this case, and to take a complete substantial synopsis of the evidence on file in the case, which I now have; and if that power of attorney has been mislaid in your office, and is not to be found where it perhaps should be, in juxtaposition with the papers in the case, the fault is certainly not mine,—nor can I conceive with what propriety, reason or justice, I, or the claimant, should be subjected to any delay, trouble or inconvenience, in consequence of any official mismanagement or dereliction, nor do I suppose for a moment that any will ensue. In your letter above referred to, you also say: "The papers transmitted to this office by you in the case of Catharine Dener," &c. It is not very likely that I would be entrusted with the transmission of papers in the case, if I were not clothed with the authority to act in the matter," and as an evidence (if it were wanting,) of my continued sufficiently authorized agency "in the matter," and that I am not a usurper, assuming the exercise of power not properly conferred upon me, I am instructed to present herewith, important additional evidence in support of the claim of Mrs. Dener.
Upon an examination of the papers on file in this case, I considered the claim clearly established by the evidence originally deduced, and found it impossible to imagine upon what ground the claim had been suspended by your predecessor,—therefore, in the letter I had the honor to address you upon the subject, under date of 7th October last, I deemed it quite sufficient, at the request of the claimant, respectfully to solicit a re-examination of the case, and to advert, briefly as I did, to a few of the most material parts of the evidence in support of the claim, not doubting for a moment, that the case would be taken up, as it were, de novo , without bias or prejudice growing out of the adverse decision of your predecessor, and receive that respectful, full and fair consideration and adjudication, demanded by its merits and legality, and a proper discharge of official duty, in which event, I as confidently predicted the prompt issuance of a pension certificate, and so advised the claimant. But instead of this, I have been met by a reiteration of the objections raised by your predecessor, the utter unreasonableness and untenableness of which I beg most respectfully to show. But before I enter upon the body of this case, I beg leave to make a few remarks, arising out of, and applicable to this and all similar cases.
It was doubtless the intention of Congress in the enactment of pension laws, that the common law and equity rules, as to the sufficiency of evidence should prevail in their execution. The converse of this proposition, will not, I feel sure, be maintained by any intelligent and candid mind. It is quite too evident to admit of a doubt, that if Congress had intended that a higher standard of evidence should be required in the adjudication of this class of claims, than would be sufficient to satisfy the minds of an intelligent court and jury, they would have said so. If there is any tribunal in this country, either legislative, executive, governmental, departmental, or judicial, that is not, or which should not be bound by the common law and equity rules of evidence as established, and uniformly adhered to, in every judicial tribunal, in every government, making the least pretensions to freedom, from the days of Justinian to the present time, I have yet to know it.
I say, if there is any tribunal or authority in this land of boasted liberal laws, unknown, superior to, and disregardful of the common law of England, as applicable to the particular case in question, I should like to know it, and it is time the public should know it.
Chief Justice Story says there is no such tribunal or authority.
It is matter of judicial history that our ancestors brought with them from the mother country the common law of England, or at least so much of it as was adopted to their new condition, and that the same has been recognized, and adopted by the general, and all the State and territorial governments, with certain modifications. But whatever modifications may have been found necessary by our new state of things, and new forms of government, that branch of England's boasted system of jurisprudence, relating to evidence, especially the sufficiency of evidence, has been adopted unaltered and unmodified, in all its length and breadth, by the general and every State government, and considered of absolutely binding authority in every judicial tribunal in this broad republic. That degree of evidence which was sufficient to carry conviction to the mind of a Littleton, a Coke, a Hale, a Bacon and a Mansfield, has ever been sufficient to satisfy the mind of a Marshall, a Kent, a Story and a Taney,—and will it not suffice for your mind? I trow it will! And if so, the result of the present case can no longer be doubtful!
Appropos : Mr. Story, in one of his admirable works, after remarking generally, that the courts of the United States and of the several States, as well as the State legislatures and the Congress of the United States, are bound by the common law rules of evidence, proceeds to say, totidem verbis : "The general rules of law and evidence applicable to common trials, are interposed to prevent the party against the exercise of wanton and arbitrary power."
In the case under consideration, it is claimed that George F. Dener of South Carolina, served as a lieutenant in the revolutionary war. In answer to this, in the report before me, you say: "The regulations require that the rank of a commissioned officer shall be established by the production of his commission, or of some other record, or documentary testimony," &c. You further say, in substance, that before a pension can be granted to claimant she must show by record evidence that her husband, served as a lieutenant," &c. If this is a governing regulation in your department, and I am to understand therefrom, that nothing short of record, or documentary evidence will be sufficient to establish a claim for services as an officer, the rule or regulation strikes at the very root, and is subversive of all the above named landmarks of English and American jurisprudence. But I do not so understand it. I have also carefully examined in vain, your published official regulations, for the enunciation of any such a rule. You say: "The rank of a commissioned officer shall be established by the production of record evidence," &c.,—doubtless it would be "established by the production of record evidence," &c. But I do not thereby understand you, nor do I presume you would pretend to say, that parole evidence would not be sufficient to establish the same fact, in the absence of record evidence. It would not be within the prerogative of the secretary or any other public functionary to establish any such a rule or regulation. Such a rule or regulation, would be a species of executive legislation, not contemplated by Congress, and at variance with the true, intent and spirit of the pension laws. When Congress devolved upon the secretary, the duty of executing the pension laws, under such rules and regulations as he might prescribe, they did not expect him to adopt an arbitrary system of rules and regulations in regard to the character and degree of evidence, unknown, and unpracticed in judicial tribunals, and calculated to defeat the objects and ends of those laws.
They expected his rules and regulations merely ancillary and subordinate to the design of the laws, and be confined to the

forms of application, modes of authenticating papers, &c. I say it was not the intention of Congress to confer upon the secretary a power or authority to demolish every vestige of the law of evidence, and erect upon its ruins, a utopian superstructure, or standard of evidence, far above the reach and the comprehension of ordinary minds and capacities, like the laws of a certain ancient lawgiver and tyrant, who caused his laws to be written obscurely, and placed so high up in the air, that but few could reach, or understand them, and then punished his subjects for their violation.
Distant claimants, upon reading the pension laws, very naturally conclude, that you will be satisfied with the same amount and degree of evidence that would be sufficient to establish similar claims in a court of law or equity, and go to work, and make out their claims accordingly, and when presented, they are told by you, that this will not do,—that a much greater amount of evidence is requisite, and such an amount and degree of evidence, as render the law, in many equally meritorious and just cases, a nullity, a species of tantalization and mockery. Thus injustice and injury is often done to honest claimants. But, whatever may be said, as to the existence or non-existence of any such a rule, to the honor of your office, be it spoken, but little or no attention has been paid to it, for it comes within my knowledge, that it is your constant practice to admit claims, and issue pensions for services, in every grade of office, without the smallest particle of record or documentary evidence, and I can refer you, if need be, to many such cases, and several in which I have been personally interested as attorney.
It is one of the proudest boasts of English liberty, secured by magna charta , extorted, it is true, by the Barons, from King John at Runny Meade, in the 13th century,—that the humblest citizen or subject, having a claim or demand against the government or King, may file his petition in the court of chancery (by what is called a petition of right) where the chancellor will administer right, as a matter of constitutional law, according to the rules of evidence as expounded by such luminaries of the English bar, as Lord Bacon, Archibald, Philips, and Starkie, to which I shall hereafter refer more particularly. And in all such cases, according to Chief Justice Blackstone, the chancellor, is rather the counsel for the claimant, than the advocate or defender of the government or King. He does not stand Cerberus like, or sword in hand, as it were, at the gates of the treasury, but administers justice with a liberal hand, and is required even to give the claimant the benefit of all reasonable doubts. If he errs, he errs on the side of liberality,—weakness and charity, if not absolute law and justice, and not on the side of oppression, power, and patronage. If such principles as these had governed in the investigation of Mrs. Dener's claim, it would not now be my humble duty to trouble you in this form,—instead of which, she would long ago have been in the enjoyment of that pittance which Congress evidently designed should be granted, without unnecessary delay, in all cases like the present.
If you will now be pleased to accompany me through an examination of the evidence (and I promise to be as brief as practicable) on file; and apply thereto the principles, which, it has been seen, should govern your decision in the case, the result cannot fail to be a certificate in favor of the claimant for her husband's two years services as lieutenant in the war of the revolution.
Christiana Dener, declares that her husband George F. Dener, became a member of a light infantry corps in 1776, and served as lieutenant of said corps, in the revolutionary war, twelve months previous to the surrender of Charleston, S. C., at which time he was taken prisoner, and detained in captivity twelve months—then escaped and served under Marion. Then, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company—became lieutenant of said corps, and served therein as lieutenant from September 1782 to September 1783,—making in all, more than two years active service, as lieutenant in the war, besides twelve months' imprisonment in the hands of the enemy, the most humiliating and disagreeable of all situations, or services, to a brave and patriotic mind; ready to shed his blood in the cause of his country and of freedom. I need not stop to say what does not admit of a question, that a pension is as much due for the period of his imprisonment, as for the most active, efficient service in the American ranks.
Her declaration is fully corroborated, for all practical purposes, by John Cart, a revolutionary pensioner, who swears positively and unequivocally, of his own personal knowledge, that said Dener served not less than two years as an officer, (lieutenant) in the revolution. He says Dener was made a prisoner at the surrender of Charleston, and remained in captivity with the enemy, one year. Was afterwards, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company, commissioned lieutenant, and served in that capacity, as Mrs. Dener states. When he says Dener was in service "two years or more as lieutenant," he doubtless means that he was in active service two years or more, besides the twelve months' imprisonment, for that, in the language of that day, and in common parlance, was not considered service.
Such scenes as the battles of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, imprisonment, escape, &c., through which, it is said, Dener passed, are the best calculated of all others, to make a distinct and lasting impression upon the human mind, and such scenes as render it literally impossible they should be mistaken in their testimony so long as reason retains her seat,—and they are not only intelligent and respectable, but shown to be of the highest and most unimpeachable character for truth and veracity. Their testimony is also sufficiently corroborated by that of W. Nurse, Mrs. Gruber, Mrs. Godfrey and Joseph Righton, revolutionary pensioners, and also that of John Stroble, David Horlbeck and Edmund Cranston herewith transmitted, all of whom, in point of character for intelligence and respectability, truth and veracity, have no superiors in South Carolina. It is the least likely thing under the sun, that all, or any one of the above named persons, have sworn falsely or incorrectly, in any essential particular. To attribute falsehood, false swearing, perjury, if you please, (for that it would be,) to all, or to any one of these persons, in such a case, would shock the moral sense of all who know them. It is what South Carolinians and those who know them best could never be made to believe for a moment! Nay, their feelings would revolt at the bare suggestion of a proposition involving the least degree of such an imputation. They have either sworn truly, or they have sworn falsely. If you are satisfied they have sworn the truth, you will admit this claim. If, on the contrary, you reject this claim, (which I do not, cannot believe,) you thereby declare in terms not to be misunderstood, that they have sworn falsely, and been guilty of perjury. That is the complexion to which it would come, and it could not be disguised! Are you prepared for this? No. And I know you will not be!
Having said thus much upon the evidence as a whole, I will not occupy your time longer, by animadverting upon the same in detail, but leave you to that well considered, deliberate and thorough examination of the same, in all its parts and bearings, which I conceive, cannot fail to lead you to the same conclusion to which I have arrived, as to the legality of this claim, and next proceed to give the law, respecting the sufficiency of evidence, as applicable to this case: according to which, it will be seen, that the uncorroborated testimony of one of the above witnesses, say that of John Cart, who testifies, positively of his own knowledge, the said Dener, rendered at least two years service as lieutenant, is sufficient to establish this claim to two years service at least,—and when corroborated, as it is, by all the other witnesses, facts and circumstances, testified to, the evidence becomes abundantly cumulative and strong, methinks, as "proofs of Holy Writ."

In Bacon's Abridgement, volume 2, page 597 : " It is holden by my Lord Chief Justice Holt, that at common law it was not necessary in any case, that a proof of any matter of fact, should be made by more than one witness, and that the single testimony of one credible witness was sufficient to prove any fact. " And it is the constant practice of the courts of equity in England, and in this country, to ground their decrees upon the testimony of a single witness. The ecclesiastical courts of England were also compelled to observe these rules. Vide, the authority above referred to. Archibald's Criminal Evidence, page 156-7. It is held, that in cases of treason and perjury, the testimony of two witnesses is necessary, or one witness with corroborating circumstances : " In all other cases one witness is sufficient. "
See, also, 2d Hawk, 6, 46, 2 ; Fost, 233, where the same principles are maintained. Philips on Evidence, vol. 3, page 565, " one credible witness is sufficient even to convict of a crime, and a useless repetition of witnesses is discountenanced by law. The Judge might by the civil law, in his discretion, stop the multiplication of witnesses to the same matter, and this is not an unusual exercise of discretion in our own courts." See, also, Wood's Civil Law, 317. " Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, page 324, also says, " that whatever was evidence at common law, is still good evidence under the express constitutional and statutory provisions of the American government." You thus perceive, Sir, that upon these principles, if George Frederick Dener were upon his trial for treason or perjury, with the weight of evidence before you, he would be convicted, and, in England, drawn and quartered, and his head severed from his body, and placed at the disposal of the sovereign.
Again, Starkie on Evidence, vol. 1, page 552 ; " the testimony of a single witness, where there is no ground for suspecting either his ability or his integrity, is a sufficient legal ground for belief ; that it is strong enough to produce actual belief, every man's experience will vouch." Now, Sir, we have seen the integrity of these witnesses to be above suspicion ; and as to their ability—they have detailed with sufficient particularity the facts and circumstances, which enabled them to know the truths to which they testified. Their ability to know the truths to which they have testified is as unquestionable as their integrity, and you cannot question the one without, at the same time, questioning the other. Bouvier says, vol. 2, page 659, " when we are called upon to rely on the testimony of another, in order to form a judgment as to certain facts, we must be certain, 1st, that he knows the facts in question, and that he is not mistaken ; and, 2dly, that he is disposed to tell the truth, and has no desire to impose on those who are to form a judgment on his testimony. The confidence, therefore, which we give to the witness must be considered, in the first place, by his capacity or his organization, and, in the next, by the interest or motive which he has to tell or not to tell the truth. When the facts to which the witness testifies agree with the circumstances which are known to exist, he becomes much more credible than when there is a contradiction in this respect. It is true," he says, " that, until impeached, one witness is as good as another, and that one witness is sufficient to establish a fact."
Now let us apply the touch stone of these principles in weighing the evidence. The battle of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, after a protracted siege, capture and imprisonment of Americans twelve months, are all matters of history. It is equally matter of fact, (I was about to say history,) that at the period of these scenes and incidents, there was in Charleston an independent infantry corps, called "German Fuseliers," and that George F. Dener was lieutenant of said corps from 1776 to his death, in 1795, and that said corps served in the Revolutionary war in the manner stated in Mrs. D.'s declaration, the following named persons having been pensioners for services in said corps, to wit : Mary Kelly, widow of John, Ann Cobia, widow of Nicholas, Franzinia Goelzinger, widow of Adam, and Mary Belser, widow of —. Now was Mrs. Dener, and those who have testified in support of her claim, in position to know the facts to which they have sworn ? They, (Mrs. D. and all,) were in the exact position, for all the world, to see and to know the facts to which they have testified. They were all citizens of Charleston, where it is evident from the testimony, not less than two years service, (including the twelve months imprisonment,) was rendered by Dener, and being his neighbors and intimate acquaintances, could not possibly be mistaken. Mrs. Gruber and Mrs. Godfrey, as well as Mrs. D., were in position to witness, and to know his services and imprisonment which passed under their eyes in Charleston. The best possible evidence that the witnesses in this case were in position to know the services performed by Dener, as testified to, is to be found in the fact, that they are, or have been, in receipt of pensions for their participation in those very services. All the evidence and circumstances of this case prove incontestibly that Dener was in a position to perform the services attributed to him. And if, instead of performing the services alledged, he had abandoned his post of duty, deserted, and acted cowardly, or tory like, would these brave and patriotic whigs have come forward, and conspire, at the price of perjury, to establish this claim ? NO ! Sir, they would ever afterwards have viewed him with scorn and contempt. Nay ! They would ever afterwards have execrated his very name. Thus, you see sir, that the claim of Christiana Dener to a pension for two years (not less) services, as Lieutenant in the Revolutionary war, by her husband, George F. Dener, cannot be rejected, without a disregard of every feeling of gratitude, every principle of law, equity, reason, and justice—every rational presumption, and all the known principles of human nature and action.
It will also brand these several witnesses with the crime of perjury, as far as your action can fix such a stigma ; a result too monstrous and painful to be contemplated, or to be expected from an impartial mind, conscious of its own rectitude, and, therefore, not ready to suspect others capable of crime before High Heaven, and that, too, in a matter in which they can have no real or imaginary interest or motive to misrepresent, or even exaggerate in the smallest degree.
I have the honor to be, &c.,
M. THOMPSON, Attorney, &c.

When was she admitted upon her pen- sion roll?
Under what act?
at what rate per an- num & for what time as lic't?
at what rate per annum & for what time as private
Catherine Denen Widow of Gen. Frederick of S.P.C.

WASHINGTON, December 15, 1851.
HON. JAS. E. HEATH,
SIR:—I have the honor of your official communication of 25 th ult., "in the case of Catharine Dener, widow of George Frederick," in which you say: "I find among them (the papers) no power of attorney appointing you to act in the matter," &c. I stand prepared to prove, that I exhibited an ample power of attorney from the claimant, executed substantially in the forms prescribed by your office, and which was duly filed therein, upon which I was permitted by the proper functionaries, to make a thorough examination of all the papers on file in this case, and to take a complete substantial synopsis of the evidence on file in the case, which I now have; and if that power of attorney has been mislaid in your office, and is not to be found where it perhaps should be, in juxtaposition with the papers in the case, the fault is certainly not mine,—nor can I conceive with what propriety, reason or justice, I, or the claimant, should be subjected to any delay, trouble or inconvenience, in consequence of any official mismanagement or dereliction, nor do I suppose for a moment that any will ensue. In your letter above referred to, you also say: "The papers transmitted to this office by you in the case of Catharine Dener," &c. It is not very likely that I would be entrusted with the transmission of papers in the case, if I were not clothed with the authority to act in the matter," and as an evidence (if it were wanting,) of my continued sufficiently authorized agency "in the matter," and that I am not a usurper, assuming the exercise of power not properly conferred upon me, I am instructed to present herewith, important additional evidence in support of the claim of Mrs. Dener.
Upon an examination of the papers on file in this case, I considered the claim clearly established by the evidence originally deduced, and found it impossible to imagine upon what ground the claim had been suspended by your predecessor,—therefore, in the letter I had the honor to address you upon the subject, under date of 7 th October last, I deemed it quite sufficient, at the request of the claimant, respectfully to solicit a re-examination of the case, and to advert, briefly as I did, to a few of the most material parts of the evidence in support of the claim, not doubting for a moment, that the case would be taken up, as it were, de novo , without bias or prejudice growing out of the adverse decision of your predecessor, and receive that respectful, full and fair consideration and adjudication, demanded by its merits and legality, and a proper discharge of official duty, in which event, I as confidently predicted the prompt issuance of a pension certificate, and so advised the claimant. But instead of this, I have been met by a reiteration of the objections raised by your predecessor, the utter unreasonableness and untenableness of which I beg most respectfully to show. But before I enter upon the body of this case, I beg leave to make a few remarks, arising out of, and applicable to this and all similar cases.
It was doubtless the intention of Congress in the enactment of pension laws, that the common law and equity rules, as to the sufficiency of evidence should prevail in their execution. The converse of this proposition, will not, I feel sure, be maintained by any intelligent and candid mind. It is quite too evident to admit of a doubt, that if Congress had intended that a higher standard of evidence should be required in the adjudication of this class of claims, than would be sufficient to satisfy the minds of an intelligent court and jury, they would have said so. If there is any tribunal in this country, either legislative, executive, governmental, departmental, or judicial, that is not, or which should not be bound by the common law and equity rules of evidence as established, and uniformly adhered to, in every judicial tribunal, in every government, making the least pretensions to freedom, from the days of Justinian to the present time, I have yet to know it.
I say, if there is any tribunal or authority in this land of boasted liberal laws, unknown, superior to, and disregardful of the common law of England, as applicable to the particular case in question, I should like to know it, and it is time the public should know it.
Chief Justice Story says there is no such tribunal or authority.
It is matter of judicial history that our ancestors brought with them from the mother country the common law of England, or at least so much of it as was adopted to their new condition, and that the same has been recognized, and adopted by the general, and all the State and territorial governments, with certain modifications. But whatever modifications may have been found necessary by our new state of things, and new forms of government, that branch of England's boasted system of jurisprudence, relating to evidence, especially the sufficiency of evidence, has been adopted unaltered and unmodified, in all its length and breadth, by the general and every State government, and considered of absolutely binding authority in every judicial tribunal in this broad republic. That degree of evidence which was sufficient to carry conviction to the mind of a Littleton, a Coke, a Hale, a Bacon and a Mansfield, has ever been sufficient to satisfy the mind of a Marshall, a Kent, a Story and a Taney,—and will it not suffice for your mind? I trow it will! And if so, the result of the present case can no longer be doubtful!
Appropos : Mr. Story, in one of his admirable works, after remarking generally, that the courts of the United States and of the several States, as well as the State legislatures and the Congress of the United States, are bound by the common law rules of evidence, proceeds to say, totidem verbis : "The general rules of law and evidence applicable to common trials, are interposed to prevent the party against the exercise of wanton and arbitrary power."
In the case under consideration, it is claimed that George F. Dener of South Carolina, served as a lieutenant in the revolutionary war. In answer to this, in the report before me, you say: "The regulations require that the rank of a commissioned officer shall be established by the production of his commission, or of some other record, or documentary testimony," &c. You further say, in substance, that "before a pension can be granted to claimant she must show by record evidence that her husband, served as a lieutenant," &c. If this is a governing regulation in your department, and I am to understand therefrom, that nothing short of record, or documentary evidence will be sufficient to establish a claim for services as an officer, the rule or regulation strikes at the very root, and is subversive of all the above named landmarks of English and American jurisprudence. But I do not so understand it. I have also carefully examined in vain, your published official regulations, for the enunciation of any such a rule. You say: "The rank of a commissioned officer shall be established by the production of record evidence," &c.—doubtless it would be "established by the production of record evidence," &c. But I do not thereby understand you, nor do I presume you would pretend to say, that parole evidence would not be sufficient to establish the same fact, in the absence of record evidence. It would not be within the prerogative of the secretary or any other public functionary to establish any such a rule or regulation. Such a rule or regulation, would be a species of executive legislation, not contemplated by Congress, and at variance with the true, intent and spirit of the pension laws. When Congress devolved upon the secretary, the duty of executing the pension laws, under such rules and regulations as he might prescribe, they did not expect him to adopt an arbitrary system of rules and regulations in regard to the character and degree of evidence, unknown, and unpracticed in judicial tribunals, and calculated to defeat the objects and ends of those laws.
They expected his rules and regulations to be merely ancillary and subordinate to the design of the laws, and be confined

to the forms of application, modes of authenticating papers, &c. I say it was not the intention of Congress to confer upon the secretary a power or authority to demolish every vestige of the law of evidence, and erect upon its ruins, a utopian superstructure, or standard of evidence, far above the reach and the comprehension of ordinary minds and capacities, like the laws of a certain ancient lawgiver and tyrant, who caused his laws to be written obscurely, and placed so high up in the air, that but few could reach, or understand them, and then punished his subjects for their violation.
Distant claimants, upon reading the pension laws, very naturally conclude, that you will be satisfied with the same amount and degree of evidence that would be sufficient to establish similar claims in a court of law or equity, and go to work, and make out their claims accordingly, and when presented, they are told by you, that this will not do,—that a much greater amount of evidence is requisite, and such an amount and degree of evidence, as render the law, in many equally meritorious and just cases, a nullity, a species of tantalization and mockery. Thus injustice and injury is often done to honest claimants. But, whatever may be said, as to the existence or non-existence of any such a rule, to the honor of your office, be it spoken, but little or no attention has been paid to it, for it comes within my knowledge, that it is your constant practice to admit claims, and issue pensions for services, in every grade of office, without the smallest particle of record or documentary evidence, and I can refer you, if need be, to many such cases, and several in which I have been personally interested as attorney.
It is one of the proudest boasts of English liberty, secured by magna charta , extorted, it is true, by the Barons, from King John at Runny Meade, in the 13th century,—that the humblest citizen or subject, having a claim or demand against the government or King, may file his petition in the court of chancery (by what is called a petition of right) where the chancellor will administer right, as a matter of constitutional law, according to the rules of evidence as expounded by such luminaries of the English bar, as Lord Bacon, Archibald, Philips, and Blackstone, to which I shall hereafter refer more particularly. And in all such cases, according to Chief Justice Hale, the chancellor, is rather the counsel for the claimant, than the advocate or defender of the government or King. He does not stand Cerberus like, or sword in hand, as it were, at the gates of the treasury, but administers justice with a liberal hand, and is required even to give the claimant the benefit of all reasonable doubts. If he errs, he errs on the side of liberality,—weakness and charity, if not absolute law and justice, and not on the side of oppression, power, and patronage. If such principles as these had governed in the investigation of Mrs. Dener's claim, it would not now be my humble duty to trouble you in this form,—instead of which, she would long ago have been in the enjoyment of that pittance which Congress evidently designed should be granted, without unnecessary delay, in all cases like the present.
If you will now be pleased to accompany me through an examination of the evidence (and I promise to be as brief as practicable) on file, and apply thereto the principles, which, it has been seen, should govern your decision in the case, the result cannot fail to be a certificate in favor of the claimant for her husband's two years services as lieutenant in the war of the revolution.
Christiana Dener, declares that her husband George F. Dener, became a member of a light infantry corps in 1776, and served as lieutenant of said corps, in the revolutionary war, twelve months previous to the surrender of Charleston, S. C., at which time he was taken prisoner, and detained in captivity twelve months—then escaped and served under Marion. Then, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company—became lieutenant of said corps, and served therein as lieutenant from September 1782 to September 1783,—making in all, more than two years active service, as lieutenant in the war, besides twelve months' imprisonment in the hands of the enemy, the most humiliating and disagreeable of all situations, or services, to a brave and patriotic mind, ready to shed his blood in the cause of his country and of freedom. I need not stop to say what does not admit of a question, that a pension is as much due for the period of his imprisonment, as for the most active, efficient service in the American ranks.
Her declaration is fully corroborated, for all practical purposes, by John Cart, a revolutionary pensioner, who swears positively and unequivocally, of his own personal knowledge, that said Dener served not less than two years as an officer, (lieutenant) in the revolution. He says Dener was made a prisoner at the surrender of Charleston, and remained in captivity with the enemy, one year. Was afterwards, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company, commissioned lieutenant, and served in that capacity, as Mrs. Dener states. When he says Dener was in service "two years or more as lieutenant," he doubtless means that he was in active service two years or more, besides the twelve months' imprisonment, for that, in the language of that day, and in common parlance, was not considered service.
Such scenes as the battles of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, imprisonment, escape, &c., through which, it is said, Dener passed, are the best calculated of all others, to make a distinct and lasting impression upon the human mind, and such scenes as render it literally impossible they should be mistaken in their testimony so long as reason retains her seat,—and they are not only intelligent and respectable, but shown to be of the highest and most unimpeachable character for truth and veracity. Their testimony is also sufficiently corroborated by that of W. Nurse, Mrs. Grüber, Mrs. Godfrey and Joseph Righton, revolutionary pensioners, and also that of John Stroble, David Horlbeck and Edmund Cranston herewith transmitted, all of whom, in point of character for intelligence and respectability, truth and veracity, have no superiors in South Carolina. It is the least likely thing under the sun, that all, or any one of the above named persons, have sworn falsely or incorrectly, in any essential particular. To attribute falsehood, false swearing, perjury, if you please, (for that it would be,) to all, or to any one of these persons, in such a case, would shock the moral sense of all who know them. It is what South Carolinians and those who know them best could never be made to believe for a moment! Nay, their feelings would revolt at the bare suggestion of a proposition involving the least degree of such an imputation. They have either sworn truly, or they have sworn falsely. If you are satisfied they have sworn the truth, you will admit this claim. If, on the contrary, you reject this claim, (which I do not, cannot believe,) you thereby declare in terms not to be misunderstood, that they have sworn falsely, and been guilty of perjury. That is the complexion to which it would come, and it could not be disguised! Are you prepared for this? No. And I know you will not be!
Having said thus much upon the evidence as a whole, I will not occupy your time longer, by animadverting upon the same in detail, but leave you to that well considered, deliberate and thorough examination of the same, in all its parts and bearings, which I conceive, cannot fail to lead you to the same conclusion to which I have arrived, as to the legality of this claim, and next proceed to give the law, respecting the sufficiency of evidence, as applicable to this case: according to which, it will be seen, that the uncorroborated testimony of one of the above witnesses, say that of John Cart, who testifies, positively of his own knowledge, the said Dener, rendered at least two years service as lieutenant, is sufficient to establish this claim to two years service at least,—and when corroborated, as it is, by all the other witnesses, facts and circumstances, testified to, the evidence becomes abundantly cumulative and strong, methinks, as "proofs of Holy Writ."

In Bacon's Abridgement, volume 2, page 597: "It is holden by my Lord Chief Justice Holt, that at common law it was not necessary in any case, that a proof of any matter of fact, should be made by more than one witness, and that the single testimony of one credible witness was sufficient to prove any fact ." And it is the constant practice of the courts of equity in England, and in this country, to ground their decrees upon the testimony of a single witness. The ecclesiastical courts of England were also compelled to observe these rules. Vide, the authority above referred to. Archibald's Criminal Evidence, page 156-7. It is held, that in cases of treason and perjury, the testimony of two witnesses is necessary, or one witness with corroborating circumstances: " In all other cases one witness is sufficient ."
See, also, 2d Hawk, 6, 46, 2; Fost, 233, where the same principles are maintained. Phillips on Evidence, vol. 3, page 565, "one credible witness is sufficient even to convict of a crime, and a useless repetition of witnesses is discountenanced by law. The Judge might by the civil law, in his discretion, stop the multiplication of witnesses to the same matter, and this is not an unusual exercise of discretion in our own courts." See, also, Wood's Civil Law, 317. "Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, page 324, also says, "that whatever was evidence at common law, is still good evidence under the express constitutional and statutory provisions of the American government." You thus perceive, Sir, that upon these principles, if George Frederick Dener were upon his trial for treason or perjury, with the weight of evidence before you, he would be convicted, and, in England, drawn and quartered, and his head severed from his body, and placed at the disposal of the sovereign.
Again, Starkie on Evidence, vol. 1, page 552; "the testimony of a single witness, where there is no ground for suspecting either his ability or his integrity, is a sufficient legal ground for belief; that it is strong enough to produce actual belief, every man's experience will vouch." Now, Sir, we have seen the integrity of these witnesses to be above suspicion; and as to their ability—they have detailed with sufficient particularity the facts and circumstances, which enabled them to know the truths to which they testified. Their ability to know the truths to which they have testified is as unquestionable as their integrity, and you cannot question the one without, at the same time, questioning the other. Bouvier says, vol. 2, page 659, "when we are called upon to rely on the testimony of another, in order to form a judgment as to certain facts, we must be certain, 1st, that he knows the facts in question, and that he is not mistaken; and, 2dly, that he is disposed to tell the truth, and has no desire to impose on those who are to form a judgment on his testimony. The confidence, therefore, which we give to the witness must be considered, in the first place, by his capacity or his organization, and, in the next, by the interest or motive which he has to tell or not to tell the truth. When the facts to which the witness testifies agree with the circumstances which are known to exist, he becomes much more credible than when there is a contradiction in this respect. It is true," he says, "that, until impeached, one witness is as good as another, and that one witness is sufficient to establish a fact."
Now let us apply the touch stone of these principles in weighing the evidence. The battle of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, after a protracted siege, capture and imprisonment of Americans for twelve months, are all matters of history. It is equally matter of fact, (I was about to say history,) that at the period of these scenes and incidents, there was in Charleston an independent infantry corps, called "German Fusiliers," and that George F. Dener was lieutenant of said corps from 1776 to his death, in 1795, and that said corps served in the Revolutionary war in the manner stated in Mrs. D.'s declaration, the following named persons having been pensioners for services in said corps, to wit: Mary Kelly, widow of John, Ann Cobia, widow of Nicholas, Franzina Goelzinger, widow of Adam, and Mary Belser, widow of —. Now was Mrs. Dener, and those who have testified in support of her claim, in position to know the facts to which they have sworn? They, (Mrs. D. and all,) were in the exact position, for all the world, to see and to know the facts to which they have testified. They were all citizens of Charleston, where it is evident from the testimony, not less than two years service, (including the twelve months imprisonment,) was rendered by Dener, and being his neighbors and intimate acquaintances, could not possibly be mistaken. Mrs. Gruber and Mrs. Godfrey, as well as Mrs. D., were in position to witness, and to know his services and imprisonment which passed under their eyes in Charleston. The best possible evidence that the witnesses in this case were in position to know the services performed by Dener, as testified to, is to be found in the fact, that they are, or have been, in receipt of pensions for their participation in those very services. All the evidence and circumstances of this case prove incontestibly that Dener was in a position to perform the services attributed to him. And if, instead of performing the services alledged, he had abandoned his post of duty, deserted, and acted cowardly, or tory like, would these brave and patriotic whigs have come forward, and conspire, at the price of perjury, to establish this claim? NO! Sir, they would ever afterwards have viewed him with scorn and contempt. Nay! They would ever afterwards have execrated his very name. Thus, you see sir, that the claim of Christiana Dener to a pension for two years (not less) services, as Lieutenant in the Revolutionary war, by her husband, George F. Dener, cannot be rejected, without a disregard of every feeling of gratitude, every principle of law, equity, reason, and justice—every rational presumption, and all the known principles of human nature and action.
It will also brand these several witnesses with the crime of perjury, as far as your action can fix such a stigma; a result too monstrous and painful to be contemplated, or to be expected from an impartial mind, conscious of its own rectitude, and, therefore, not ready to suspect others capable of crime before High Heaven, and that, too, in a matter in which they can have no real or imaginary interest or motive to misrepresent, or even exaggerate in the smallest degree.
I have the honor to be, &c.,
M. THOMPSON, Attorney, &c.

WASHINGTON, December 15, 1851.
HON. JAS. E. HEATH,
SIR:—I have the honor of your official communication of 25th ult., "in the case of Catharine Dener, widow of George Frederick," in which you say: "I find among them (the papers) no power of attorney appointing you to act in the matter," &c. I stand prepared to prove, that I exhibited an ample power of attorney from the claimant, executed substantially in the forms prescribed by your office, and which was duly filed therein, upon which I was permitted by the proper functionaries, to make a thorough examination of all the papers on file in this case, and to take a complete substantial synopsis of the evidence on file in the case, which I now have; and if that power of attorney has been mislaid in your office, and is not to be found where it perhaps should be, in juxtaposition with the papers in the case, the fault is certainly not mine,—nor can I conceive with what propriety, reason or justice, I, or the claimant, should be subjected to any delay, trouble or inconvenience, in consequence of any official mismanagement or dereliction, nor do I suppose for a moment that any will ensue. In your letter above referred to, you also say: "The papers transmitted to this office by you in the case of Catharine Dener," &c. It is not very likely that I would be entrusted with the transmission of papers in the case, if I were not clothed with the authority to act in the matter," and as an evidence (if it were wanting,) of my continued sufficiently authorized agency "in the matter," and that I am not a usurper, assuming the exercise of power not properly conferred upon me, I am instructed to present herewith, important additional evidence in support of the claim of Mrs. Dener.
Upon an examination of the papers on file in this case, I considered the claim clearly established by the evidence originally deduced, and found it impossible to imagine upon what ground the claim had been suspended by your predecessor,—therefore, in the letter I had the honor to address you upon the subject, under date of 7th October last, I deemed it quite sufficient, at the request of the claimant, respectfully to solicit a re-examination of the case, and to advert, briefly as I did, to a few of the most material parts of the evidence in support of the claim, not doubting for a moment, that the case would be taken up, as it were, de novo , without bias or prejudice growing out of the adverse decision of your predecessor, and receive that respectful, full and fair consideration and adjudication, demanded by its merits and legality, and a proper discharge of official duty, in which event, I as confidently predicted the prompt issuance of a pension certificate, and so advised the claimant. But instead of this, I have been met by a reiteration of the objections raised by your predecessor, the utter unreasonableness and untenableness of which I beg most respectfully to show. But before I enter upon the body of this case, I beg leave to make a few remarks, arising out of, and applicable to this and all similar cases.
It was doubtless the intention of Congress in the enactment of pension laws, that the common law and equity rules, as to the sufficiency of evidence should prevail in their execution. The converse of this proposition, will not, I feel sure, be maintained by any intelligent and candid mind. It is quite too evident to admit of a doubt, that if Congress had intended that a higher standard of evidence should be required in the adjudication of this class of claims, than would be sufficient to satisfy the minds of an intelligent court and jury, they would have said so. If there is any tribunal in this country, either legislative, executive, governmental, departmental, or judicial, that is not, or which should not be bound by the common law and equity rules of evidence as established, and uniformly adhered to, in every judicial tribunal, in every government, making the least pretensions to freedom, from the days of Justinian to the present time, I have yet to know it.
I say, if there is any tribunal or authority in this land of boasted liberal laws, unknown, superior to, and disregarding of the common law of England, as applicable to the particular case in question, I should like to know it, and it is time the public should know it.
Chief Justice Story says there is no such tribunal or authority.
It is matter of judicial history that our ancestors brought with them from the mother country the common law of England, or at least so much of it as was adopted to their new condition, and that the same has been recognized, and adopted by the general, and all the State and territorial governments, with certain modifications. But whatever modifications may have been found necessary by our new state of things, and new forms of government, that branch of England's boasted system of jurisprudence, relating to evidence, especially the sufficiency of evidence, has been adopted unaltered and unmodified, in all its length and breadth, by the general and every State government, and considered of absolutely binding authority in every judicial tribunal in this broad republic. That degree of evidence which was sufficient to carry conviction to the mind of a Littleton, a Coke, a Hale, a Bacon and a Mansfield, has ever been sufficient to satisfy the mind of a Marshall, a Kent, a Story and a Taney,—and will it not suffice for your mind? I trow it will! And if so, the result of the present case can no longer be doubtful!
Appropos : Mr. Story, in one of his admirable works, after remarking generally, that the courts of the United States and of the several States, as well as the State legislatures and the Congress of the United States, are bound by the common law rules of evidence, proceeds to say, totidem verbis : "The general rules of law and evidence applicable to common trials, are interposed to prevent the party against the exercise of wanton and arbitrary power."
In the case under consideration, it is claimed that George F. Dener of South Carolina, served as a lieutenant in the revolutionary war. In answer to this, in the report before me, you say: "The regulations require that the rank of a commissioned officer shall be established by the production of his commission, or of some other record, or documentary testimony," &c. You further say, in substance, that "before a pension can be granted to claimant she must show by record evidence that her husband, served as a lieutenant," &c. If this is a governing regulation in your department, and I am to understand therefrom, that nothing short of record, or documentary evidence will be sufficient to establish a claim for services as an officer, the rule or regulation strikes at the very root, and is subversive of all the above named landmarks of English and American jurisprudence. But I do not so understand it. I have also carefully examined in vain, your published official regulations, for the enunciation of any such a rule. You say: "The rank of a commissioned officer shall be established by the production of record evidence," &c.,—doubtless it would be "established by the production of record evidence," &c. But I do not thereby understand you, nor do I presume you would pretend to say, that parole evidence would not be sufficient to establish the same fact, in the absence of record evidence. It would not be within the prerogative of the secretary or any other public functionary to establish any such a rule or regulation. Such a rule or regulation, would be a species of executive legislation, not contemplated by Congress, and at variance with the true, intent and spirit of the pension laws. When Congress devolved upon the secretary, the duty of executing the pension laws, under such rules and regulations as he might prescribe, they did not expect him to adopt an arbitrary system of rules and regulations in regard to the character and degree of evidence, unknown, and unpracticed in judicial tribunals, and calculated to defeat the objects and ends of those laws.
They expected his rules and regulations to be merely ancillary and subordinate to the design of the laws, and be confined

to the forms of application, modes of authenticating papers, &c. I say it was not the intention of Congress to confer upon the secretary a power or authority to demolish every vestige of the law of evidence, and erect upon its ruins, a utopian superstructure, or standard of evidence, far above the reach and the comprehension of ordinary minds and capacities, like the laws of a certain ancient lawgiver and tyrant, who caused his laws to be written obscurely, and placed so high up in the air, that but few could reach, or understand them, and then punished his subjects for their violation.
Distant claimants, upon reading the pension laws, very naturally conclude, that you will be satisfied with the same amount and degree of evidence that would be sufficient to establish similar claims in a court of law or equity, and go to work, and make out their claims accordingly, and when presented, they are told by you, that this will not do,—that a much greater amount of evidence is requisite, and such an amount and degree of evidence, as render the law, in many equally meritorious and just cases, a nullity, a species of tantalization and mockery. Thus injustice and injury is often done to honest claimants. But, whatever may be said, as to the existence or non-existence of any such a rule, to the honor of your office, be it spoken, but little or no attention has been paid to it, for it comes within my knowledge, that it is your constant practice to admit claims, and issue pensions for services, in every grade of office, without the smallest particle of record or documentary evidence, and I can refer you, if need be, to many such cases, and several in which I have been personally interested as attorney.
It is one of the proudest boasts of English liberty, secured by magna charta , extorted, it is true, by the Barons, from King John at Runny Meade, in the 13th century,—that the humblest citizen or subject, having a claim or demand against the government or King, may file his petition in the court of chancery (by what is called a petition of right) where the chancellor will administer right, as a matter of constitutional law, according to the rules of evidence as expounded by such luminaries of the English bar, as Lord Bacon, Archibald, Philips, and Starkie, to which I shall hereafter refer more particularly. And in all such cases, according to Chief Justice Blackstone, the chancellor, is rather the counsel for the claimant, than the advocate or defender of the government or King. He does not stand Cerberus like, or sword in hand, as it were, at the gates of the treasury, but administers justice with a liberal hand, and is required even to give the claimant the benefit of all reasonable doubts. If he errs, he errs on the side of liberality,—weakness and charity, if not absolute law and justice, and not on the side of oppression, power, and patronage. If such principles as these had governed in the investigation of Mrs. Dener's claim, it would not now be my humble duty to trouble you in this form,—instead of which, she would long ago have been in the enjoyment of that pittance which Congress evidently designed should be granted, without unnecessary delay, in all cases like the present.
If you will now be pleased to accompany me through an examination of the evidence (and I promise to be as brief as practicable) on file, and apply thereto the principles, which, it has been seen, should govern your decision in the case, the result cannot fail to be a certificate in favor of the claimant for her husband's two years services as lieutenant in the war of the revolution.
Christiana Dener, declares that her husband George F. Dener, became a member of a light infantry corps in 1776, and served as lieutenant of said corps, in the revolutionary war, twelve months previous to the surrender of Charleston, S. C., at which time he was taken prisoner, and detained in captivity twelve months—then escaped and served under Marion. Then, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company—became lieutenant of said corps, and served therein as lieutenant from September 1782 to September 1783,—making in all, more than two years active service, as lieutenant in the war, besides twelve months' imprisonment in the hands of the enemy, the most humiliating and disagreeable of all situations, or services, to a brave and patriotic mind, ready to shed his blood in the cause of his country and of freedom. I need not stop to say what does not admit of a question, that a pension is as much due for the period of his imprisonment, as for the most active, efficient service in the American ranks.
Her declaration is fully corroborated, for all practical purposes, by John Cart, a revolutionary pensioner, who swears positively and unequivocally, of his own personal knowledge, that said Dener served not less than two years as an officer, (lieutenant) in the revolution. He says Dener was made a prisoner at the surrender of Charleston, and remained in captivity with the enemy, one year. Was afterwards, upon the reorganization of the German Fuselier company, commissioned lieutenant, and served in that capacity, as Mrs. Dener states. When he says Dener was in service "two years or more as lieutenant," he doubtless means that he was in active service two years or more, besides the twelve months' imprisonment, for that, in the language of that day, and in common parlance, was not considered service.
Such scenes as the battles of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, imprisonment, escape, &c., through which, it is said, Dener passed, are the best calculated of all others, to make a distinct and lasting impression upon the human mind, and such scenes as render it literally impossible they should be mistaken in their testimony so long as reason retains her seat,—and they are not only intelligent and respectable, but shown to be of the highest and most unimpeachable character for truth and veracity. Their testimony is also sufficiently corroborated by that of W. Nurse, Mrs. Gruber, Mrs. Godfrey and Joseph Righton, revolutionary pensioners, and also that of John Stroble, David Horlbeck and Edmund Cranston herewith transmitted, all of whom, in point of character for intelligence and respectability, truth and veracity, have no superiors in South Carolina. It is the least likely thing under the sun, that all, or any one of the above named persons, have sworn falsely or incorrectly, in any essential particular. To attribute falsehood, false swearing, perjury, if you please, (for that it would be,) to all, or to any one of these persons, in such a case, would shock the moral sense of all who know them. It is what South Carolinians and those who know them best could never be made to believe for a moment! Nay, their feelings would revolt at the bare suggestion of a proposition involving the least degree of such an imputation. They have either sworn truly, or they have sworn falsely. If you are satisfied they have sworn the truth, you will admit this claim. If, on the contrary, you reject this claim, (which I do not, cannot believe,) you thereby declare in terms not to be misunderstood, that they have sworn falsely, and been guilty of perjury. That is the complexion to which it would come, and it could not be disguised! Are you prepared for this? No. And I know you will not be!
Having said thus much upon the evidence as a whole, I will not occupy your time longer, by animadverting upon the same in detail, but leave you to that well considered, deliberate and thorough examination of the same, in all its parts and bearings, which I conceive, cannot fail to lead you to the same conclusion to which I have arrived, as to the legality of this claim, and next proceed to give the law, respecting the sufficiency of evidence, as applicable to this case: according to which, it will be seen, that the uncorroborated testimony of one of the above witnesses, say that of John Cart, who testifies, positively of his own knowledge, the said Dener, rendered at least two years service as lieutenant, is sufficient to establish this claim to two years service at least,—and when corroborated, as it is, by all the other witnesses, facts and circumstances, testified to, the evidence becomes abundantly cumulative and strong, methinks, as "proofs of Holy Writ."

In Bacon's Abridgement, volume 2, page 597: "It is holden by my Lord Chief Justice Holt, that at common law it was not necessary in any case, that a proof of any matter of fact, should be made by more than one witness, and that the single testimony of one credible witness was sufficient to prove any fact. " And it is the constant practice of the courts of equity in England, and in this country, to ground their decrees upon the testimony of a single witness. The ecclesiastical courts of England were also compelled to observe these rules. Vide, the authority above referred to. Archibald's Criminal Evidence, page 156-7. It is held, that in cases of treason and perjury, the testimony of two witnesses is necessary, or one witness with corroborating circumstances: " In all other cases one witness is sufficient. "
See, also, 2d Hawk, 6, 46, 2; Fost, 233, where the same principles are maintained. Philips on Evidence, vol. 3, page 565, "one credible witness is sufficient even to convict of a crime, and a useless repetition of witnesses is discountenanced by law. The Judge might by the civil law, in his discretion, stop the multiplication of witnesses to the same matter, and this is not an unusual exercise of discretion in our own courts." See, also, Wood's Civil Law, 317. "Greenleaf on Evidence," vol. 1, page 324, also says, "that whatever was evidence at common law, is still good evidence under the express constitutional and statutory provisions of the American government." You thus perceive, Sir, that upon these principles, if George Frederick Dener were upon his trial for treason or perjury, with the weight of evidence before you, he would be convicted, and, in England, drawn and quartered, and his head severed from his body, and placed at the disposal of the sovereign.
Again, Starkie on Evidence, vol. 1, page 552; "the testimony of a single witness, where there is no ground for suspecting either his ability or his integrity, is a sufficient legal ground for belief; that it is strong enough to produce actual belief, every man's experience will vouch." Now, Sir, we have seen the integrity of these witnesses to be above suspicion; and as to their ability—they have detailed with sufficient particularity the facts and circumstances, which enabled them to know the truths to which they testified. Their ability to know the truths to which they have testified is as unquestionable as their integrity, and you cannot question the one without, at the same time, questioning the other. Bouvier says, vol. 2, page 659, "when we are called upon to rely on the testimony of another, in order to form a judgment as to certain facts, we must be certain, 1st, that he knows the facts in question, and that he is not mistaken; and, 2dly, that he is disposed to tell the truth, and has no desire to impose on those who are to form a judgment on his testimony. The confidence, therefore, which we give to the witness must be considered, in the first place, by his capacity or his organization, and, in the next, by the interest or motive which he has to tell or not to tell the truth. When the facts to which the witness testifies agree with the circumstances which are known to exist, he becomes much more credible than when there is a contradiction in this respect. It is true," he says, "that, until impeached, one witness is as good as another, and that one witness is sufficient to establish a fact."
Now let us apply the touch stone of these principles in weighing the evidence. The battle of Beaufort, Stono and Savannah, surrender of Charleston, after a protracted siege, capture and imprisonment of Americans for twelve months, are all matters of history. It is equally matter of fact, (I was about to say history,) that at the period of these scenes and incidents, there was in Charleston an independent infantry corps, called "German Fuseliers," and that George F. Dener was lieutenant of said corps from 1776 to his death, in 1795, and that said corps served in the Revolutionary war in the manner stated in Mrs. D.'s declaration, the following named persons having been pensioners for services in said corps, to wit: Mary Kelly, widow of John, Ann Cobia, widow of Nicholas, Franzinia Goelzinger, widow of Adam, and Mary Belser, widow of —. Now was Mrs. Dener, and those who have testified in support of her claim, in position to know the facts to which they have sworn? They, (Mrs. D. and all,) were in the exact position, for all the world, to see and to know the facts to which they have testified. They were all citizens of Charleston, where it is evident from the testimony, not less than two years service, (including the twelve months imprisonment,) was rendered by Dener, and being his neighbors and intimate acquaintances, could not possibly be mistaken. Mrs. Gruber and Mrs. Godfrey, as well as Mrs. D., were in position to witness, and to know his services and imprisonment which passed under their eyes in Charleston. The best possible evidence that the witnesses in this case were in position to know the services performed by Dener, as testified to, is to be found in the fact, that they are, or have been, in receipt of pensions for their participation in those very services. All the evidence and circumstances of this case prove incontestibly that Dener was in a position to perform the services attributed to him. And if, instead of performing the services alledged, he had abandoned his post of duty, deserted, and acted cowardly, or tory like, would these brave and patriotic whigs have come forward, and conspire, at the price of perjury, to establish this claim? NO! Sir, they would ever afterwards have viewed him with scorn and contempt. Nay! They would ever afterwards have execrated his very name. Thus, you see sir, that the claim of Christiana Dener to a pension for two years (not less) services, as Lieutenant in the Revolutionary war, by her husband, George F. Dener, cannot be rejected, without a disregard of every feeling of gratitude, every principle of law, equity, reason, and justice—every rational presumption, and all the known principles of human nature and action.
It will also brand these several witnesses with the crime of perjury, as far as your action can fix such a stigma; a result too monstrous and painful to be contemplated, or to be expected from an impartial mind, conscious of its own rectitude, and, therefore, not ready to suspect others capable of crime before High Heaven, and that, too, in a matter in which they can have no real or imaginary interest or motive to misrepresent, or even exaggerate in the smallest degree.
I have the honor to be, &c.,
M. THOMPSON, Attorney, &c.

Edmund Cresswell
June 21. 1872
Showing that Dumas was not at the looking of Percival

Charleston June 21 st 1882
Col George Little Raleigh No Ca
Dear Sir. Your favour of the 14 th enclosing the Comm e . Official Report and Col Thompson letter is received and the Report returned as desired. The Comm e . seems to labour under a mistake induced doubtless from his studying the Case of Col Epps more than the one before him, and from the mistake of Mr Cantwell, the one who first undertook it, in trying to prove that Dener was one of the Officers at the siege of Savannah. This is not a fact, for it appears from the records that Sheppard was Capt, Daryl Strobel 1 st Lieut & Jacob Sasser 2 nd Lieut also. Sixty one Privates were all that were present at that siege, many of the other members did not go, among whom was Dener. The Comm e . asserts that he is satisfied "there is not the slightest proof for the assumption that Dener served as a Lieut of the German Auxiliary previous to the fall of Charleston (May 12 th 1780)." It can be proved from the Records in the Rule Book that Dener was Lieut from 1779 to 1786. It is known that Capt Sheppard was killed at the siege of Savannah 9 th October 1779. and when the Company returned to Charleston in the same year, an election took place for Officers, when Daryl Strobel 1 st Lieut at the siege was elected Capt, Geo F Dener 1 st & Jacob Sasser 2 nd Lieut & Col Thompson has a Rule Book, and can see the Promotion of Sasser which the Comm e . so much enlarged.

upon. The Comm ee again asserts "If Dener was an "Officer of that Company, he was elected after the evacu- "ation of Charleston in December 1782, on its reorganization, "but as such, could have rendered no service which would entitle "his widow to a Pension". The records referred to in the Rule "Book prove he was Lieut from 1779 to 1786. The Comm ee , again asserts that there is evidence in existence which "will test the accuracy of the averment that Dener served "one year as a Lieut prior to the surrender of Charleston "12 May 1780". Here we are wanting, because Dener was elected Lieut somewhere in Norbro December 1779 only about 6 months. I am not acquainted with the nature of the Pension Laws, but if they require one year service as Lieut previous to the surrender in May 1780 we are defeated; such not being the fact. If there are any Affidavits sent on by Cantwell deemed prejudicial to the Case, they must be attributed to the ignorance of the Parties in taking common report and imperfect recollections for facts. The Pictures referred to in the Comm ee Report prove clearly that Dener was not at the Siege of Savannah, and that after the death of Capt Sheppard an election was held in the same year for Officers, the particulars of which are already stated. As you are a Lawyer and I am not, I will take any advice suggested
Very Respectfully Your Ob t Servant Edmund Crawford

MS. I have written Capt Ino Strobel to give me an account of the other engagement the Company was in, we have not a Col Class to do it for us; as soon as he sends it I will forward immediately.

Washington Aug. 27 th 1852
Hon. Col. E. Heath Commr. of Pensions
Dear Sir
The Claim of Bener of St. Car. has been in the hands of Col. Viles for examination. some six or eight months.
He would willingly take up & dispose of the Claim, if authorized and advised to do so by you.
I have the honor to H. Thompson Atty. for Bener

Brief in the case of Christiana Dener, widow of George F. Charleston County and State of S. Carolina,
act
July 7, 1838, N.Y.
Claim, ("original," or "for increase.")
Proof exhibited, (if original.)
Is it documentary, traditionary, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Admitted after consulting the commission. In cases of Jacob Sef, Mary Belse, Ann Edna, John Cart, William Purse, Elizabeth Righton S. Carolina Rolls.
(If for increase.)
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?
Name and residence of Agent
M. Thompson Present
Examining Clerk.
Cyrus Skelton

Off at Court Claims Washington City Dec 18, 1856
Sir,
M rs Christiana Dener, a pensioner under the acts of July 7 ('38, Mar 3 '43, &c, at the rate of $236 65 per ann, is claiming before this point, pension at the rate of $320. She under in Charleston so far.
Will you have the kindness to give me a copy of the decision in her case, or any other paper showing the time allowed for by the Department, and also to state whether the allowance was made upon the evidence produced by her, or upon other evidence, in whole or part, in your office.
Very respectfully
Wm Lloyd. S er v.
Wm Lloyd. S er v.
Deputy Solicitor.
Geo. A. Whiting Esq Court Pensions.

Washington Decr. 26. 1857
Hon. James E. Heath
Sir
Mrs. Christiana 7 reares of Charleston S. C. & those who testify in support of her claim, are my constituents, and from my personal knowledge of them all, I take great pleasure in confirming all that her attorney Col. M. Thompson, has said in his accompanying argument in the case, as it regards their character for intelligence & respectability, truth & veracity. And, I have every reason to believe, from the best information, I have been able to obtain, & from the general reput-

station of George F. Bener, that the fervor in the War of the Revolution in the manner alleged that Mrs. Bener is entitled to the pension claimed, and few things would gratify me, and her numerous friends and acqu- aintances more, than to know that she had obtained the amount claimed.
Your attention in person at your earliest convenience will very much oblige dear Sir Yours Certs.
William Biken Representative of the Congressional District of South Carolina.

Washington City August 22 nd 1857
Sir
I have the honor to request your earliest attention to the accompanying letter of Maj. George Little, & case to which it relates.
The papers, I understand, exhibit a very clear & valid claim, and having been on file some time, & the claimant being in the most indigent circum- stances , it would be an act of charity , as well as justice , to pass upon it as early as possible.
Most respectfully Your obedt servt W. Thompson
To Hon. J. L. Edwards Commr. of Pensions

Washington City
August 22 1832
Dear Sir
Some months ago I received a letter from Mrs. Christiana Dena of Charleston Sola authorizing me to attend to her claim for a pension as the widow of George Fred. Dener, an officer of the Revolutionary War, from the State of South Carolina, filed under act of 7th July 1838 and subsequent acts. You will please apply at the office and examine the papers in support of her claim and ascertain what - for the proof, if any, is required -
I am yours very respectfully
Geo. Smith
Mr. Thompson Esq. Attorney at Law Washington City

Washington June 1 st 1852 Col. Stiles
Dear Sir
The claim of Christiana Jones of So. Car. whose papers are in your hands for official action, was suspended for many years, until the 15 th Decr. last. I filed important, & my kind, conclusive additional evidence, requesting on behalf of the claim said Mrs. Jones, (who is now very old & feeble) a reexamination of her said claim, since which, five months have a half months have elapsed, & yet no adjudication of the claim, and this extraordinary delay too, in the

face of published 2 rules, to the effect, that such claims are, (as they certainly should be) adjudicated in the order in which they are filed, & the fact, that claims of like character, are daily being admitted & acted upon by your dept. which were presented more than two months after the presentation of the sever case.
I do not understand this. While I do not ask exceptions to be made in my favor, I have a right to claim, on behalf of those I represent, that exceptions to rules shall not be made against them & me.
You will find on file in this case, a letter from the claimant, stating that a certain other agent, (having no doubt

been my argument in the case, & became satisfied of the legality & justice of the claim, called upon her, & stated that he recovered claims of like character, upon a far less weight of evidence, than appears on file in that case, & that within a much shorter space of time, & solicited her to employ him to my exclu- sion. She has also been tampered with by other agents, who have represented to her that they could recover for her within much less time, By the  the irregular action & unjust delay, therefore of your office, there is danger that Mrs. Dunes may become

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

22.
Oct 27. 1852
Washington
Oct 21/52
M Thompson
Rel: to the case of Catharine Allen
Oct. 27/52
Cal
Ref to Comr of Pensions for a Report
Dept Int 2 Oct 27/52

Washington Oct. 21 st 1852 Hon. J. H. H. Stuart Secy of the Interior
Sir
Elizabethaner, Widow of George F. Sevier of South Carolina. Was recently placed on the South Carolina roll, at $226 65 / 100 per annum, being for 17 months service as lieut. 17 months as private in the G. F. Company. By reference to the evidence in the case, adverted to, underlined , on page 2 & 3, of my printed letter of 15 th Novr. 1851, to the Commissioner of Pensions, herewith inclosed. You will find that said widow rendered not less than two years active

service as lieutenant, besides  twelve months captivity with  the enemy, for which he  is equally entitled to a pension.
The reason, (if any he had ) why senior was not admitted for full two years services as lieut. does not appear upon the record, & I have been utterly at a loss to imagine one. Upon an examination of the evidence, you will find it as clear & conclusive, that he served, as I have above stated, as that he served an honor.
The commissr.  has admitted, & will admit, (for it cannot be questioned) that said senior became a member of said company in 1776. &

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

His lieutenancy at just 17 mos. in the race of the evidence requires an explanation. Which she alone can give.
Take the commissioner's very proper admission that he never became lieut. towards the close of the year 1779. & the evidence that he continued to serve in that capacity in the War from that time until the surrender of Charleston. His twelve months captivity immediately succeeding that surrender. His escape. Service in Marion's Camp. Return to Charleston. Reorganization of the Loyal E. F. Company. His service therein in the War as lieut. from Sept 1782. to Sept. 1783. &

Now 17 months alone, as liar. Not over thirty months as liar. Can be made sup- -asses all my powers of arithmetical or other calcu- -lation. If there is a problem in English, more difficult to solve, than that by which the comm'r arrived at the conclusion which he did, in the face of such evidence as he had before him, I have never yet found it.
I have the honor to be Your aff. Servt. H. Thompson
P.S. If, as it has been admitted, has the evidence shows, he was

lieut. in service at the surrender of Charleston, & after his im- prisonment, escape & service with Marion, he returned, & became lieut. again upon the reorganiz- -ation of the company in Sept. 1782. it is but just and equitable to treat him, for all the purposes of this claim, as having been continuously in service as lieut. from 1779 to Sept. 1783. If he was not a lieut. constantly in service from in that period from 1779, to 1783, it was simply because the enemy captured & compelled the company to disband: This is shown by the fact, that immediately after the evacuation of the city

by the British. He returned reorganized. the Again became lieut. of the company, and served another year in the War, in that cause.
He is certainly entitled to more respect, for escaping as he did, & joining Marion & continuing to fight, than if he had accepted a parole, as many others did.

Charleston S.C.
15 April 1847
Sir, Respectfully recall to your attention the case of Mrs. Christiana Dener, widow of Geo. F. Dener, who served as an officer and a private in the "German Fusileers" of Charleston S.C. Militia, during the war of the Revolution. A letter from the Department of 3, Sep. 1839, states "that documentary evidence would be required to establish the allegation that he held a Lieutenant's Commission."
Respectfully submit. That the department has made no decision on her claim as the widow of a private for 12 months service, which I hereby now make.
In order to procure such a decision I submit a synopsis of the proof - on file in the department.
3 Sep 1838, John Cart a revolutionary pensioner, swears he served from 1779. to 1783, and that he believes two years of this was as an officer and in the 9. Fusileers.
19 July 1839. John Cart makes an affidavit in relation to the treatment of prisoners after the surrender of Charleston in 1780. He says Dener was among them.
1 Nov 1838. Joseph Righton a Revolutionary pensioner swears to 12 months service.
30 Oct 1838. William Purse, a Revolutionary pensioner sustains Righton's statement.
1 Nov 1838. Mr. Gruber and Mrs. Godfrey also Revolutionary pensioners corroborate the statement of Righton.
Rest the case here, and respectfully solicit

Solicit a decision. I do so also upon the ground that, two gentlemen strangers in our City lately called upon Mrs Derran in relation to this matter, and at whose request she signed some papers? — I appeal to the justice of the Commission, and to the rights of agents — to say, if no new evidence be adduced, — surely I am entitled to the benefit of a decision brought about by proofs furnished by me at considerable expense and trouble.
I remain Sir in the most respectful Yours, Mr. M c Intosh. P. Cantwell
To
James L Edward Esq. Comm r in person of pensions, War Department. Washington City, {

CMS Department of the Interior Washington Nov r 30 th 1853
Sir:
Your decision in the case of Christiana Dener, widow of George F. Dener, claiming increase of Pension, has been affirmed, and the papers accompanying your report, herewith returned to your office.
I am, very respectfully, Your obedient Servant
R. McLellan Secretary
The Hon.
Loren P. Waldo Commissioner of Pensions

Washington City 25 th 1852
Hon. Jas. E. Heath
Sir
I beg leave herewith to enclose a letter from Edmund Cranston Esq. the grandson of Mrs. Christiana Lewis widow of Lieut. George F. Lewis dec. d of Col. Clegg's exhibiting a well-founded impatience at the very long suspension of that claim. & the assurance. Which you will see of other agents. and competent judges. that this claim. (as I have hitherto contended. especially in my feeble argument of 15 th Decr. last.) is supported by a far greater amount of

evidence than is to be found in more fortunate cases in other hands.
It is confidently hoped that your earliest personal attention will relieve me from the further importunities of the claimants, & meet out long deferred justice to Mrs. Adams .
I have the honor to be most Respectfully A. Thompson Atty.

Washington City June 21 1847
J. L. Edwards Esq Commissioner of Pensions Sir
P. Cantwell Esq of Charleston S.C. writes to me "In 1838-39 I filed the claim of Christiana the widow of George Fred m Dewees before the Commissioner of Pensions, for a pension due her as the widow of an officer in a private - The claim for his services as an officer was rejected, because these services were not proved by documentary evidence but in regard to the claim for services as a private which were fully proved I never had any decision about as. Renewed my application to the Commissioners for a decision on this point - No reply has been given - I mention this thing to you because two gentlemen called lately upon Mr. Dewees in relation to this matter and it is not right that I should lose my commission for an examination you will learn I have no doubt these gentlemen have not been able to produce any new testimony in addition to what I forwarded in support of the claim -
Will you be so good as to direct an examination of the matter & inform me of the result.
Very respectfully Yr obedt Servt Ch. Sproule

Washington City 206 August. 31 st 1828
Sir
Capt. P. Cantrell of the City of Charleston S.C. writes me as follows "
"Mrs Christiana Dener, Widow of Geo. F. Dener who served in the Militia of S.C. during the war of the Revolution, to wit: 12 months as a Private, and 12 months as a Lieut. - I admit that I am unable to prove by documentary evidence the service performed as a Commissioned officer, but I do assert that I have abundantly proved his service as a private for 12 months. Will you ask the Commissioner to make a decision upon the service as a private"
Will you have the goodness to comply with Mr Cantrells request, and notify me of the result at your earliest convenience?
Respectfully &c George Mackay On F Street -
J. L. Edwards Esq r Comm r of Pensions

(Copy)
War Department, Pension Office
June 29 1839,
Sir
I have examined the claim of Mrs. Ann Cobia widow of Nicholas Cobia, and have caused her name to be placed on the pension roll under the act of July 4. 1836,
The claim of Franzina Goetzinger widow of Adam and of Mary Belser widow of Christiana have been placed on our files. - The persons above named were members of an Independent Company raised in Charleston, called the German Fusiliers. - The widows of Goetzinger and Belser have not been able to describe their husbands services as our rules require. -
Nicholas Cobia in his declaration gave a very particular account of his actual services which amounted to 14 months. -
Jacob S a pensioner was the Lieut of this Company, and in his application he claimed for a service of 14 months and 24 days and was allowed that amount. - The fact being established that Goetzinger and Belser belonged to said Company, the department is willing to make the same allowance for their service as was made to Cobia, - Goetzinger however it is said performed other important services subsequent to the fall of Charleston - that after being a prisoner 9 months he joined Gen: Marion under whom he served as Commissary and Forage master till he returned to Charleston in Dec: 1782. - when he again joined his old company of Fusiliers in which he served till Sept: 1783, of this service however, no satisfactory proof

has been offered, He was married it seems Dec r 26, 1782, just after the evacuation of Char l ston by the British, and it is matter of great doubt whether he performed any service against the enemy after his marriage, altho he might still have been a member of the German Fusileers. - Unless service subsequent to the marriage be clearly shown the widow's claim cannot be allowed under the act of July 4, 1836. It is very probable the records in the Comptroller General's office may furnish some proof of her husband's service under Gen l Marion.
On reflection, I have thought proper to issue a Certificate for Mrs Belser, as she claims only for the service performed in the German Fusileer Company.
Patrick Cantwell Esq Charleston, South Carolina
I am respectfully Your obed t Serv t (Signed) J L Edwards
Mary Kelly widow of John Kelly of German Fusileers was allowed per pension Certificate issued 1840 $40 = per an Ann Cobia widow of Nicholas, same Company, 1839, 46. = 66 2/3 Franzina Goetzinger, widow of Adam, Do - Do, 1839 46 - 66 2/3 Mary Belser, widow of Christiana Do Do " 46. 66 2/3
See Record of these certificates and the proof in relation thereto, in the pension office, - They are all on the South Carolina roll, -

Washington City D.C. Sep. 15 th 1853
Hon. J. P. Maldo Comt. of Pensions
Sir
I think the case of Christiana Bener of St. Car. has been overlooked.
In regular order it would undoubtedly have been acted upon ere this, for increase of her pension granted for her husband George H. Bener's services in the War of the Revolution. The principal points

Relied upon confidently for an increase Will be found underlined in my printed argument, (a copy of which is herewith inclosed) and in a Manuscript Supple- mental argument of a date subsequent thereto, long since placed on file with the papers in the Case.
I have the honor to be Sir. H. Thompson. Atty. for Sever.

Washington Oct 7 th 1854 Hon. James C. Heath
Sir
The claim of Christiana  Sever , Widow of George H. Sever die d of South Carolina, has been pending in your office, some dozen years. The improper rejection of which, by your predecessor in office, Will, I am sure, satisfactorily appear to your mind, by reference to the papers on file in the case. There will be found the positive testimony of John  Cart , a Revolutionary  pensioner , that Sam  Sever , served as an officer

(Lieut. he thinks, as claimed) two or more years, & that Bener was Lieut. at the surrender of Charleston S. C. etc.
M c Clure , a revolutionary pensioner. Was acquainted with said Bener during the Revolution; knew he wore the uniform, & fully believes he served as Lieut. 12 months in the Revolutionary War.
M c Gruber , a revolutionary pensioner, knew said Bener as an officer. (Lieut. & he thinks) for one year, perh- aps two, during the War of the Revolution.
Mrs. Godfrey & Joseph

Lighton. Revolutionary pensioners, fully confirm the foregoing.
gy
Enough, in all conscience, it would seem to establish her claim.
I herewith inclose a letter from Col Geo. Little, Marshall of N.H. from which you will see Mrs. Bener is very old. I was in the possession of her for grandson's full length portrait of said Bener, a circumstance enti- tled to considerable weight.
re- al a, a, 3
The absence of second evidence is satisfactory acco- -unted for, by the destruction of the company's rolls of that day.
now as an officer

Your earliest attention to this much too long deferred claim. Will, I feel sure, result in the prompt admi- -ssion of the same, & thus gladden the heart of this most estimable old lady. I have the honor to be most respectfully your obedt. Servt A. Thompson
as an officer

Comm. of Seniors Room No 18.
Mr Davidge will please examine the papers sent to him herewith from Mr Thompson & after the examination I will confer with him.
J. E. Heath

L. P. Waldo Esq Commissioner of Pensions
Dear Sir
I herewith send you the application of Mrs. Christiana Dener for Bounty Land under the Act of 3 rd March 1855
Will you please file the same in your office and acknowledge the receipt thereof
Yours Respectfully.
Charles Town South Carolina } W. B. Fickling 4 th June 1855 - } atty at Law

Midway
PAID
Pre paid
20 3/4
Chas. J. Nourse Esq. Washington D. C.
Aug 12 47 Midway
U

Charleston S.C. 19 August 1847
Charles J. Venable Esq. Washington City
Sir,
The communication of the Department in relation to the claim of Mrs. Christiana Dener widow of Geo. F. Dener who served as a private for 12 months in the German Fusileers during the war of the Revolution, — of June 4 th 1847 is before me, — The Department requires information as to the organisation and liabilities of service of that Company — For answer thereto I herewith transmit the copy of a letter written to me by the Commission of Pensions dated June 1839, which is so conclusive on the point, that I believe I may respectfully hope that it will give the required information and obtain a pension certificate for Mrs. Dener for 12 months service. The authenticity of the letter may of course be verified at the office.
I am Sir
very respectfully yours Sir
P. Cantwell

Wadsworth 23 July 1837
Dear Sir
Much to my gratification on my return here, yesterday I received the enclosed paper of attorney from Mrs. Christiana Dener at Charleston of which it appears she is still living and as I am informed, in eager expectation of her pension.
It was enclosed to me by her grandson a gentleman of high respectability who informed me, that a Mr. Cantrell of Wilmington at the time had had something to do with it a year since - but that all authority is now re-invoked in me; - The grandson writes me that there is a Revolutionary soldier named Mr. Muckenfuss, 96 years old who lived with Dener and probably his deposition may avail a good deal - I wish you to examine her papers forthwith and if you think Muckenfuss' deposition would aid, inform me and I will obtain it. - Mrs. Dener is now very old, had no child and you must be urgent and active in this case - It will pay as well should it pass and I hope to

have a portrait of him from you very soon - The grandson has in his possession a full portrait of his grand father Dever taken at the time he was an officer, with his full uniform, epaulettes, sword &c - This would be rather unusual evidence to produce as to his having been an officer, but it seems, some evidence of this could be obtained so as to make it tell at the office
Yours truly Geo Little
Mr Thompson Washington City
Everett to July 25th 1871 Aug 11th
Dever
Mail
Post

Horace Rep. A. S. Washington Sept 8 1830
Sir
Will you have the kindness to cause to be reported to me the present condition of the pension claim of Christiana Dener, the widow of George F Dener for Revolutionary services. The case was commenced before the Department, if I mistake not by Majr George Little of N.C. and claim made under act of 1838 & subsequent acts. Mrs Dener is of Charleston S.C.
I have the honor to be Your obedt Servt R Wallace
Hon J L Edwards