Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 13730, William Denny, Va And 1790-1791

SERVICE
NUMBER
Pa and
Denny, William Mary
PP 13730 B.L. Reg. 315946
1790-1791
CONTENTS
[Blank lined section]
[Blank lined section with two diagonal pencil marks]

315946 Act Mar 3/55 Aug 20/61
Mary Denny Wid of William Denny Private
Capt Col
War Rev
Suspended.
2149 C. H. Barkley Louisville Ky
See Declaration for pension. Act
Act 7 th July 183.

Parties names
Date
By whom married
William Denny & Mary Shields 27 th Decr 1792 James Chambers State of Kentucky } Nelson County } set
J. B. L. Blakey clerk of the County Court for the County aforesaid do certify that the foregoing Copy purporting to be a Copy of the Marriage of William Denny & Mary Shields dated the Twenty Seventh day of December one Thousand Seven hundred Ninety two and married by Jas Chambers, as shown above, is truly copied from the records on file in my office
Given under my hand hereunder and the seal of said Court done at Bardstown this 28 th day of May A.D. 1861
B. L. Blakey. clk Nelson, County Court

Montgomery County Illinois Set
I, Mary Denny of said County aged from my best information 87 years make this following Statement viz
"I am widow of William Denny deceased who in his lifetime was engaged in the Military Service of the United States in the Revolutionary war. Viz He belonged to and served in the Virginia Militia or State Troops - Militia is the more probable
My said husband served at Winchester Virginia in guarding some British Prisoners - and my best impression is that he was an officer in that duty and that he was in the rank of Lieutenant; He was also on duty at or near Pillsburg in the year 1777, also under Capt. John Hale from Kentucky in 1790 or 1791 against the Indians in the North West, now Indiana
I have no papers in any way relating to this service nor do I know of any witnesses alive any where by whom I can prove the facts of his said services,
Samuel Denny was a brother of my said husband and they were at least for a portion of the time in the service together; Said Samuel Denny was a resident of Putnam County Indiana and was a pensioner of the United States under Act June 7th 1832, and it may be that he in his application made some allusion to the services of my said husband.
The said Samuel is the only one that I ever knew that was reported to have served with my said husband. (2)

Nor do I now remember ever hearing of the names of any men who served with my said husband, (3) except Captain Job Hale as aforesaid - He is long since dead I suppose.
The above named places are the only ones that I now remember ever hearing that he was at in time of said service (4)
I was married to said William Denny in Nelson County Kentucky on the 27th day of December 1792 (Seventeen hundred and Ninety two) by Dr. James Chambers and my name before I was so married was Mary Shields - I have family record of our said marriage.
My said husband died in Putnam County Indiana on the (5) 5 th day of (5) April (5) 1832 (Eighteen hundred and thirty two ) leaving me his widow and since then I have never married again but remain his widow.
The above named was the only military service ever performed by my said husband so far as I now remember ever hearing of, and it may be that a portion of his service was in the State Troops - Refer to Records and known facts as to character of Troops at places above named (6)

I make this declaration for the purpose of applying for the benefit of any Pension Law that may apply to the facts of my case and I hereby, with full power of substitution appoint C. H. Barkley of Louisville Kentucky my agent in this behalf
I have never heretofore applied for the benefit of any pension Law of Congress and neither did my said husband, so far as I now remember ever hearing of (7)
As to whether I ever knew of or saw any papers relating to any of his services I will say (8) that I never saw any to the best of my knowledge
As to whether my said husband was ever a witness for any soldier in an application for pension I will say, (9) not that I know of
This 4 th day of June 1861
Mary her Brannan
(Seal)

Montgomery County Illinois Set,
(12)
(13)
We the undersigned of said County aged respectively fifty  forty  four  and  fifty  two years state that for many years last past we have been well and very intimately acquainted with Mrs Mary Denny above named
Her foregoing statements agree with what we have always heard and believed and never heard disputed; both in regard to the service of her said husband, and fact and date of their marriage and her maiden name; and that he came originally from Virginia and that he had there served in service of United States in Revolutionary War; and that the above named and described Samuel Denny was his brother, and that said William Denny died in Putnam County Indiana at about the time stated above - And we have known the said Mary Denny for many years as the widow of said William Denny and she has not married again since his death but remains his widow; and she now resides in this County and she did, on this day in our presence sign and acknowledge the foregoing declaration, and for our reasons herein above given we certify that she is the identical person whom she therein represents herself to be; and that she is now a widow and has been ever since the time of the death of her husband the above named William Denny And we are disinterested, This 14 th day of June 1861
15 16
W. W. 17  Garthwaite Eliza 18  Garthwaite mark

State of Indiana } ss County of Putnam } On this 20 th day of June A.D. 1861, Personally appeared before me Melvin McKee, Clerk, of the Putnam circuit in and for said county James Denny aged sixty three (63) past a resident of Putnam County State of Indiana States that he is a nephew of Samuel Denny, deceased, who was a Revolutionary pensioner of the United States under the act June 7 th 1832 on the Indiana agency. My said uncle Samuel Denny had a brother by the name of William Denny who died in this county in the month of April 1832. leaving a wife Mary Denny who is now living in Montgomery County Illinois and is still a widow her maiden name was Mary Shield, and that they were married in the state of Kentucky nearly 70 years ago such is the reputation of the case. The said Mary lived in this county until within a few years last past still remaining widow of the said William Denny. that in the last fifteen days he has heard from her. The family tradition is that my said uncles Samuel & William served together in the Revolutionary war of the United States. my impression is that he held some office in the army while capturing prisoners which was taken by General Morgan in the state of Virginia, my said uncle Samuel Denny who was a pensioner of the United States as aforesaid died without any heirs except the children of his brothers and sister. that said James Denny who has sworn to and subscribed his name to this affidavit is a nephew of said Samuel Denny deceased

and I hereby authorize the agent of said Mary Denny or her sub agent to request examination of the papers of my said uncle Samuel Denny in this behalf which may be on file in Russian office at Washington D.C. And I am disinterested in said claim of Mary Denny but am an heir at law of said Samuel Denny, deceased. Dated June 20 1861.
James Denny (Seal)
State of Indiana ss County of Putnam } On this 20 th day of June A.D. 1861 Personally appeared before me Melvin McKee, Clerk of the circuit court in and for said county Joseph Denny, aged 72 years past a resident of Putnam County in the state Indiana States that he is a nephew of Samuel Denny who was a Revolutionary pensioner of the United States and also that William Denny, deceased who was the husband of Mary Denny, who is the widow of said William Denny that he fully swears to all the statements set forth in James Denny's Declaration and affidavit true and that he has no interest in this claim attest Joseph his Denny mark John Spurgins } Clinton Wall }
State of Indiana County of Putnam } Sworn to and subscribed before me Melvin McKee Clerk of the circuit court in and for said county James Denny & Joseph Denny who are well known to me to be credible persons and residents of said county and I believe them to be of the age they call themselves and to be disinterested. And I certify that I am disinterested given under my hand and seal this 20 th day of June 1861
Melvin McKee Clerk

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
July 7, 1931
Memorial Branch Q.M. General War Department Washington, D. C.
Rev.& 1812 Wars Section AWF
Gentlemen:
You are advised that it appears from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim, R. 13730, that William Denny married, December 27, 1792 in Nelson County, Kentucky, Mary Shields. He died, April 5, 1832 in Putnam County, Indiana. She moved to Montgomery County, Illinois, in the fall of 1859.
The widow, Mary, applied for pension, June 4, 1861, while a resident of Montgomery County, Illinois, aged eighty-seven years, and stated that her husband, William Denny, served in the Virginia militia as lieutenant; that he guarded the prisoners at Winchester, Virginia; in 1777 served near Pittsburgh; and in 1790 or 1791 was under Captain Job Hale against the Indians in the Northwest.
In the Revolutionary War pension claim of Samuel Denny (S. 32212), he states that his brother, William Denny, served as follows, in the Virginia troops from March, 1777, two months as second lieutenant in Captain Peter Babb's Company, Colonel John Smith's Regiment, and was in a campaign against the Indians between Pittsburgh and Wheeling; later in 1777, four months as first lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's Company; in 1778, four months as first lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's Company; and in 1781, two months as first lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's Company, and guarded British prisoners. Some of his service was under General Morgan.
Mary Denny was called upon to furnish, if possible, her husband's commission as lieutenant, but she died without

completing her claim.
There are no data relative to the children of William and Mary Denny.
Very truly yours
A. D. HILLER Assistant to Administrator

Rev
13730
P. O.
Mary Denny
Service:
widow
Enlisted:
of William
, 18
Discharged:
, 18
REJECTED
Application filed:
, 18
Alleges:
Re-enlisted:
Attorney:
P. O.
Recognized.
Contract.
Cert. of Dis.
Searched for
, 18
1927 - Jan 13 - Host to Mrs Mary B. Denny and 1931 - June 12 - " " Walter Denny. has letter sent to Rec. Div. for Civil War reply and. 1931 - July 7 - Host to Memorial Pk. Army

Memorial Branch furnished history of William Deering July 7-1931 Aug.

WAR DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL WASHINGTON
JUL 2 1931 19
MEMORANDUM TO:
Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, Washington, D.C.
* * * * *
Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Treasury Building, Washington, D.C.
* * * * *
The Surgeon General, Washington, D.C.
* * * * *
In order that headstones properly inscribed may be furnished, it is requested that the "Service" of the decedents named on the enclosed applications be verified and returned as soon as practicable to this office.
The regulations provide that the name of the State from which the decedents came be inscribed on the headstones. It is requested that this information be given and that any corrections be made in red ink on the form.
* * * * *
The Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D.C.
* * * *
The General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
* * * *
In order that headstones properly inscribed may be furnished for the graves of the decedents named on the enclosed applications, it is requested that you furnish this office the correct spelling of the names and complete designation of the organizations.
Please show widow's claim number!
29/86/

Mrs Mary Denny Widow of William Denny Bounty Land Claim Act 1855
Claimant's Post Office " Hillsboro Montgomery County Illinois
315946
"C. H. Barkley, Louisville Kentucky"
H. H. Spitzer Hillsboro Ill.
C. H. Barkley Louisville Ky

Montgomery County Illinois Set 11
I, Mary Denny of said County aged 87 years make this following statement Viz
"I am widow of William Denny who in his lifetime was engaged in the Military Service of United States in war of the Revolution
I was married to said William Denny in Nelson County Kentucky on the 27 th day of December 1792 by Dr James Chambers and my name before I was so married was Mary Shields,
My said husband died in Putnam County Indiana on (or about) the 5 th day of 2 April 185 2 leaving me his widow and since then I have never married again but remain his widow.
Of even date herewith, through agency of C. H. Barkley of Louisville Kentucky I make an application for Pension as widow aforesaid and I refer to my statements therein and to the proof that may accompany the same. I make this declaration for the purpose of applying for the benefit of the Bounty Land Act of March 3 rd 1855, and I hereby with full power of substitution appoint C. H. Barkley, above named my agent in this behalf.
I have never heretofore applied for or received the benefit of any Bounty Land Act of Congress, and neither did my said husband so far as I now remember ever hearing of. 131
This 4 4 th day of 4 June, 1861
Mary Denny her mark

Montgomery County Illinois Set,
We the undersigned, residents of said County do on our oaths say that Mrs Mary Denny of said County resident, did, on this day, in our presence sign and acknowledge the foregoing, and for our reasons set forth in our joint statement of even date herewith that accompanies her pension application we certify that she is the identical person whom she therein represents herself to be, and that she is now a widow. And we are disinterested witnesses.
This 4 th day of June 1861
6
H. M. Gaitheas
7
Eliza Gaitheas mark
Montgomery County Illinois Set
The foregoing statements were, on this day, signed and sworn to before me, Clerk of the County Court in and for said County,
The claimant is the identical person whom she therein represents herself to be and she is now a widow,
The witnesses are credible persons whom I believe to be disinterested.
The parties are all residents of this County,
Refer to my certificate accompanying her Pension claim
And I certify that I am disinterested.

Witness my name and official seal at my office in Hillsboro on this 24 th day of June 1861 John T. Madden CLK

Mrs Mary Denny Widow of William Denny Revolutionary Act July 7 th 1838 - etc
Act June 7 th 1832 under amendment of July 4 1836
C. H. Barkley Louisville Kentucky

Montgomery County Illinois Set.
I, Mary Denny of said County aged 87 years, widow of William Denny, deceased and as such, an applicant for Revolutionary Pension under Act July 7 th 1838 etc through agency of C. H. Barkley of Louisville Kentucky make this following Supplemental Statement Viz
"I have it is true, delayed the assertion of my claim for many years - even after I had some general information that widows of Revolutionary Soldiers of certain classes were entitled to pensions.
As I stated in former declaration I never knew any of the fellow Soldiers of my said husband except his brother Samuel whom I have heretofore described.
I do not now remember the names of any others of them.
The said Samuel Denny has been dead for more than 11 fifteen (15) years.
I have never been fully informed as to how I should proceed in order to procure a pension; and after the death of said Samuel Denny, there was no witness alive known to me - and even while he was alive I did not know that his evidence alone would suffice.
The papers of my said husband relating to his services have long since been lost, destroyed or mislaid - and I was never informed as to where (if any where) I could probably or possibly procure evidence of his services.
I am reliably informed that there is little or no evidence at Richmond Virginia of Revolutionary Service of the Militia of that State - even of officers services.

C. H. Barkley my agent above named informs me that during the seven years last past he has written me for evidence of service in many cases of the kind including some of Commissioned Officers; and that he has in each case, never failed to get an answer to the effect that there was no evidence on file in Records of the State of Virginia - That the Records of the Militia Service of Virginia in War of Revolution were nearly entirely destroyed - So I have good reason to believe that even if there were mail facilities now to Richmond Virginia, I could not procure any better evidence than I have already referred to.
My said husband has now been dead for more than 29 years - I could not depend on my memory of the details of his service as I could on the statements of Samuel Denny named above.
My agent above named at the solicitation (as he informs me) of my friends in Putnam County Indiana, informed me first of the possibility that said Samuel Denny had made some statements or references that would be of service to me in establishing my claim - And his suggestions in the case to that effect made in April last were the first information that I ever had that even that much evidence possibly existed, and after receiving this information I lost no time in having my claim prepared and filed using due diligence myself therein.
I will say further that if I had been informed as to what means I should use in order to procure my rights I would at all times have been ready to use all diligence therein.

When pension laws were first passed for widows - I understood that those only were embraced who were married before or during the Revolutionary war.
In regard to the time when I was first informed that a pension law applied to the date of my marriage - or in other words that I could get a pension by proving husband's service etc, I will according to my best present memory it was only about twelve  four years ago.
I will say therefore in conclusion, that having always acted in this matter according to my best information; and being now old, I respectfully request a liberal treatment of my case on its merits
This Twelfth day of September 1861
Attest Two Witnesses Viz
John J. Maddox
J. H. W. Gaither
4
her Mary J. Denny mark
Montgomery County Illinois Set.
Sworn to and subscribed before me John J. Maddox Clerk County Court in and for said County. And I certify that this statement was carefully and correctly read over to her before she signed it. She is the identical person whom she therein represents herself to be and is now a widow - And I am disinterested
This Twelfth day of September 1861
John J. Maddox
Clerk County Court said County

C. H. Barkley, Louisville, Kentucky
Supplemental Statement of Mrs Mary Denny of Montgomery County Illinois - widow of William Denny and as such a claimant for Revolutionary pension under Acts July 7 th 1838 and subsequent ones through agency of C. H. Barkley of Louisville Kentucky -
Since the death of my said husband in month of April 1832 my residence has been as follows Viz
In Putnam County Indiana until fall of 1859
I have never carelessly neglected to act in this matter on any probable information as to my rights and sources of proof and letter from said Barkley gave to me first information as to my reasonable probability of getting pension. My circumstances in life have been as follows Viz
I have had no property of my own, but have generally until within some years past been able to work some for my support. Have resided in this County since November 1859
Montgomery County Illinois on This 30 th day of September 1861
Mary her X Denny mark
Montgomery County Illinois Set,
Supplemental Statement of Henry R. Gaither
and Eliza Gaither
Residents of said County -
We the undersigned above named state that we were witnesses for the above named - declarant a few months ago when she made her above named applications for Revolutionary pension as widow of William Denny Deceased -

The said William Denny died in Putnam County Indiana on the 5 th day of April 1832 (Eighteen hundred and thirty two) Viz
We remember very distinctly the date thereof. We remember distinctly also that our oldest daughter was born on the 17 th day of January 1831 (Eighteen hundred and thirty one) we know her age - have record of it and we have recently examined same record and find it to be as heretofore mentioned
The said Mrs Mary Denny since then has resided as follows Viz In Putnam County Indiana until fall of 1859
We remember very distinctly that said William Denny was taken down bedfast in a few months after the death  birth of said oldest daughter - we remember also very distinctly that he was thus bedfast for thirteen (13) months last before he died - thus bringing the date of his death into April 1832 (Eighteen hundred and thirty two)
The best reasons that we can assign for her delay in making application for pension are as follows Viz
Ignorance of her rights and ignorance of existence of any evidence of her said husband's services. She has had it is true some general information that widows were entitled, but as heretofore above stated she has not been fully informed and no person has ever urged the matter on her, and we did not know how to advise her.
Samuel Denny - Revolutionary pensioner - resident of said County of Putnam - Brother and fellow soldier or officer of said William Denny died in said County of Putnam more than seventeen years ago Viz We both remember very well when he died - He lived there in said County

And we state that we are now, as heretofore, disinterested in the result of the pension claims of said Mrs. Mary Denny who did, on this day in our presence sign and acknowledge the foregoing statement. This 30 th day of September 1861 W. H. G. M...
Eliza for  mark Gauthier
Montgomery County Illinois ss.
Sworn to and subscribed before me a justice of the peace in and for said County - The affiants are well known to me as credible persons of said County resident. I believe the witnesses to be disinterested - and I am disinterested. This 30 th day of September 1861 In above statement word 'death' was erased and word 'birth' was interlined before signing.
This 30 th day of September A.D., 1861
Joel C. Braylor J.P.
Montgomery County Illinois ss.
I John S. Maddux, clerk of the County Court in and for said County do hereby certify that Joel C. Braylor whose genuine signature appears to the above certificate was at the date thereof an acting justice of the peace in and for said County, duly commissioned and qualified.
Witness my name and official seal at my office in Hillsboro on this 4 th day of October A.D. 1861
John S. Maddux Clerk

Montgomery County Illinois set. The foregoing statements were on this day signed and sworn to before me Clerk of the County Court in and for said County in open Court now sitting at the Court House
in the town of Hillsboro — The parties thereto are all well known to me as credible persons of said County resident and whom I believe to be of respective ages therein named.
And I further certify that these statements are satisfactory to said Court that William Denny a reputed soldier and officer of the United States service in the Revolutionary war departed this life in Putnam County Indiana on (or about) the 5 th day of April 1832 (Eighteen hundred and thirty two) leaving the above named Mrs Mary Denny his widow which she yet remains I believe the witnesses to be disinterested
And I certify that I am disinterested Witness my name and official seal at my office in Hillsboro on this 4 th day of June A.D. 1861
John J. Maddux Clerk. Co. Court.

H. H. Gaither Hillsboro Illinois
C. H. Barkley Louisville, Kentucky
Remarks
I suppose that there is no evidence of the service of this William Denny in existence any where unless it be some allusions and statements of some men in their own pension applications - And, as at present advised I cannot refer to any fellow soldiers, except
as named within V. His brother Samuel Denny and if he alluded to Lt. Wm Denny or to his brother Wm Denny this was the man - as per within proof
Respectfully
Commissioner Pensions Washington D. C.,
C. H. Barkley of Louisville Kentucky July 23 rd 1861

Mrs Mary Denny Widow of William Denny Revolutionary Act July 7 th 1838 And continuations & Renewals
Claimant's Post Office Address " Hillsboro Montgomery County Illinois "
C. H. Barkley Louisville Kentucky

Mr. Boynton will please examine the within papers and the case to which they relate.
Dec. 30, 1864.
[Handwritten signature: S. H. P.]
Department of the Interior, PENSION OFFICE, OFFICIAL BUSINESS.
Commissioner.

Louisville Kentucky November 21 st 1861
Sir
John McCalla Attorney of your city is hereby fully invested with my authority in the Pension claim of Mary Denny widow of Lieutenant William Denny under Acts July 7 th 1838 — etc, etc, and her Bounty Land claim under Act March 3 rd 1855, Number 315,946 Provided that you have not already allowed them
Yours Respectfully
Commissioner Pensions Washington (D, C)
C. H. Barkley

Louisville Kentucky
September 7 th 1861
Sir
I am in receipt of letter from your office in case of My Denny in which are some remarks - which as I understand are of general nature referring to myself and which I will proceed to answer at once - I quote from your letter,
" Though the State of Kentucky has not gone out of the Union, " yet as the disunion sentiment prevails quite extensively " there it is deemed no more than just that an assurance " of your loyalty should be given by a reference to some " one known to this office " etc etc, etc,
My answers are as follows -
First. My opinion is that there is an overrating of extent of Disunion feeling as to Kentucky.
2 nd I recognize the entire propriety of your request of me as to knowing my own position.
You will find among other correspondence that my Colonial Commission is certified to your office - When I qualified under that Commission I took a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States and also of the State of Kentucky - I understood then and yet understand that the Constitution of the United States is the "Supreme Law of The Land" - my oath was not, on my conscience a meaningless one - and with my understanding of it, if I were to go into Revolution I would begin by resigning and withdrawing it - if obedience involved me in what my conscience would not approve

This would be my course if I were a politician - which I am not - I do not even vote, and never expect to - I have felt no invasion of my rights on the part of the Government -
I have as no sympathy with the Rebellion either in theory or in its progress - never have had -
But I base my loyalty on higher principles than any of these ideas - and they are the highest that I can conceive of - of worldly character -
I profess to be a Christian - and have so professed for more than 22 years - ever since before I was grown and my loyalty results from my understanding as to my duty - being commanded to render obedience to rulers - and to pray for those who are in authority, and in short to live a quiet and peaceable life - and this duty cuts me off - as I understand it, from all efforts at or sympathy with revolution or secession or rebellion or invading other rights and all of morals of the times. With these views I feel it to be my duty to obey all laws passed by the "Supreme authority" i.e., the Congress of the United States - to pay taxes, and to advise others to do so -
I am conscientiously opposed to bearing arms and with that exception I shall submit to every ordinance of man -
Some months ago I anticipated some test of this kind, and I wrote a letter defining my

position substantially as herein - and at first thought of sending it direct to your office - and then upon reflection - I sent it - or wrote a similar one to R. M. Henry, of your city and requested him to file it if he thought proper or necessary - I have not heard from him for more than two months - but he got that letter from me, for he acknowledged its receipt.
I can besides this refer you to Mr Kinkead former Reus. Agt, here - he knows my views as per our conversations - I have known him for about 15 years - I can refer also to Mr Cotton, the Surveyor of Customs here - We were in law class together about 12 years ago - but I have not had any conversations with him on these points; but he can easily satisfy himself in regard to my position - I have never formed a personal acquaintance with Mr Gallybran the Reus. Agt, until within a few weeks days past, but will also refer to him - also to Mr Hamney, Editor the in this city - I have probably written much more than there was any need for - but thought that I would set the matter clearly before you once for all.
Very Respectfully,
Commissioner Pensions Washington (D. C.)
Your obt. Servt C. H. Barkley
I have no personal acquaintance with Mr Mallory our M. C. but he can soon ascertain my position - from mutual acquaintance

C. H. Barkley
Aug. 23

Pension Office.
August 23, 1861.
Sir:
The claim of Mary Denny, widow of William Denny, under the act of 7 th July 1838 has been received & filed.
She claims a pension under that act, by virtue of her husband's services in the Virginia Militia in the revolutionary war; and she refers to the papers filed by Samuel Denny a Brother, son of her husband who drew a pension under the act of 7 th June 1832, for evidence of William Denny's services.
Twenty three years have elapsed since the passage of the act under which this claim is asserted, and during this period Mrs Denny has resided in an intelligent community, where other widows have successfully urged their claims for pensions on account of their husbands revolutionary services, yet she has slept upon her alleged rights until all the witnesses (especially Samuel Denny) who could by their testimony have aided her in perfecting the

proofs, are dead. Now she presents her claim for the first time, and demands a pension with arrearages running back to the 4 th March 1836, without furnishing any evidence to support her allegation. Her total silence for so long a period is calculated to raise a strong presumption against the validity of her claim, which will require very satisfactory explanation to remove.
The case of Samuel Denny has been referred to and it is found that he did alleged six different tours of two months duration in the Virginia Militia at different times from March 1776 to Dec. 1781, in a Regiment commanded by Col John Smith, and Company commanded by Capt Meyer, in which his Brother William Denny was a Lieut, and that on five of these tours he served himself as 2 d Lieut. His claim was allowed as a Private on his own declaration supported by no evidence. To justify an allowance as an Officer evidence of a commission or an appointment as such would have been required, which was not furnished.
To warrant the admission of Mrs Denny's claim for the service of her husband, as a

Lieutenant, evidence of a Commission and service should be produced from the Auditor General's Office at Richmond, Va., where records of Militia service in the revolutionary war exist. There is no such evidence in this Office - I am aware of the difficulty of meeting this demand in the present condition of the country, but it is Mrs Henry's misfortune that she had delayed the assertion of her rights till this difficulty has arisen, and the regulations of this Office forbid the allowance of a claim on service as an officer without record prior to 1794 proof evidence - The proof of marriage as and of her identity as the widow of the individual named by Samuel Henry in his declaration for a pension, as the Lieutenant under whom he served, is satisfactory.
John Smith drew a pension as a Colonel, but he claimed no service like that described by Samuel Henry.
C. H. Barclay Louisville, Ky.

Remarks in case of Mary Denny widow of Wm ,
Can we not accept pension in rank of private - She is very infirm and it would not surprise me at any time to hear of her death - It seems to me that good faith on their part requires that they admit her claim in some rank - for the first correspondence in the case clearly implied a promise to do so
Thos E Lloyd Washington
D. C.
Yours Truly
6th Barkley Louisville Ky May 28/1863

If Mr. Pugh has not found a record of service in this case, would he be pleased to return me the papers.
Thos. E. Dugdale

Louisville Kentucky
November 1 st 1861
Sir
In case of Mrs Mary Denny widow of William Denny — Act July 1838 etc, etc I have to request of you if you please, to inform me as to names of any other Officers (if any) and Solferino Soldiers named by Samuel Denny besides Colonel Smith, Captain Mercer and Lt. Mrs Denny
By having this information I may be able to make some references that will give more light on the subject
Respectfully
C. H. Barkley
Commissioner Pensions Washington D. C.
Will you also please inform me as to who acted as Mr Samuel Denny's agent, or made out his papers

Mary Denny widow of Wm Denny war of 1812
n o of land claim Reg d # 315,946, -'55
Pension under act of 7 July 1838
C. H. Buckley to
In o M c Calla, Washington City

Brief of Case of Mary Denny widow of William Denny . Acts July 7 th 1838, etc and for Bounty Land claim. Her husband is represented to have served in Virginia Militia in rank of First Lieutenant .
Records of that service have been destroyed. Her husband died in Putnam County Indiana April 5 th 1832.
The only evidence of service that we can produce is the statement of Samuel Denny in his own application under Act June 7 th 1832 = Marriage at date of Dec. 27 1792 admitted, and her identity as widow of the Lt. W m Denny named by said Samuel Denny is admitted, and reports on the case were favorable and fully complied with in every respect; and I confidently expected that the claim would be admitted; but all at once, they flew off in a very unaccountable manner, raising objections of very frivolous nature — I requested appeal nearly four weeks ago but have not as yet heard from it, — Perhaps Samuel Denny named some fellow soldiers besides — if so I would like to have list of their names — as the Pension Roll might have their names — and their statements might throw some light on the subject — Please investigate and report.
I enclose authority Genl McCalla Washington (D, C)
Yours truly C A Barkley Louisville Ky. Nov 21 1861

Montgomery County Illinois March 26 1863.
Dear Sir
On this day I mailed to you a power of Atty for care of Mary Denny widow of William - Set July 4 th 1838 - July 7 1838 etc. Above are copies of the reports received - on this case - A careful perusal of the first and second will convince you (as I think) that they held out the idea or promise that they would admit the claim - or make a "favorable adjustment" in a certain contingency - and we fully complied therewith, and I did confidently expect an allowance of the claim -
But as you will see by last copy that all at once they flew off the handle - and refuse to be governed by precedents and play off on the common name of John Smith.
It seems to me that they just intended to tantalize us and raise expectations for the purpose of disappointing a poor old woman.
After first stating Samuel Denny's alleged service as six tons of two months each - they now reduce to five - and state that he was pensioned as a private - 5 of 2 = 10 - - - to $33 33 a year 6 of 2 = 12 = $40. a year - But record shows that Samuel Denny (Indiana Agency) was pensioned at $45 20 about 13 1/2 months as private . So that they are mistaken in some way -
I think it possible that if you were to make a special personal appeal to the Commissioner himself that it might be allowed - I will pay to you 12 1/2 per cent Contingent
Yrs & Lloyd Atty Washington D.C.
Yours Truly W.H. Barkley, Louisville Ky Always address me there

D. P. U. Box, Greencastle, Indiana, November 12, 1926.
Department of the Interior, Pension Bureau, Division of the Revolution, Washington, D. C.
Gentlemen:
I write to inquire if the name of my ancestor, only William Denny, appears on your records as having received a pension. He was born in Berks County, Pennsylvania, in 1748, went to Virginia and enlisted in General Daniel Morgan's Division, serving under Colonel Spotswood. At the close of the war he had the rank of lieutenant.
If the above mentioned William Denny did receive a pension, I shall greatly appreciate it if you will send me a full copy of all information on file concerning him. If there is any charge, I shall be glad to pay it.
If, however, William Denny's name does not appear on the pension rolls, will you kindly advise me as to where to write for information concerning his military service, etc.?
Respectfully, (Miss) Mary B. Denny,
Mary B. Denny,
DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana

JOHN M. M C CALLA, ATTORNEY AT LAW AND GENERAL AGENT,
WASHINGTON CITY.
Attends to the collection of all claims for Pensions, Land or Money, either before Congress, the Courts or the Departments.
Washington, D. C., February 14 th 1862
The Commissioner of Pensions
Sir
C. H. Barkley att o . of I enclose a power of attorney from Mary Denny of Montgomery County Illinois, appointing me her attorney to prosecute her claims for bounty land and pensions as widow of William Denny dec d under the acts of 7 July 1838 and 3 March 1855. I desire to know the condition of her claims.
Resp y
J n M c Calla

General authentication of Notarial character of Robt A Watts. Jeff. Co., Ky., is filed in Pension Office

Louisville Ky
January 25 th 1864
Dear Sir
Is there no possible chance to get them to pass the claim of Mary Denny — Revolutionary — even in rank of private ? Do they repudiate all precedents and repudiate even the reports that they have made on the case itself as soon as it is complied with?
The reports certainly held out the idea that they would admit it in certain contingency which we fully complied with
Could you not successfully appeal the case?
Thos E Lloyd
Washington D.C.
Yours truly
C. H. Barkley

Louisville Kentucky August 27 th 1861
Sir
I am in receipt of your letter of 23 rd inst. in case of Mary Denny - widow of William Denny - Act 1838 - etc, etc,
For the present I pass your remarks in relation to her (as it seems to me) inexcusable delay - admitting their full force as a general rule - but at same time will say that she can make satisfactory explanation thereof. Viz That she has never had any one to attend to it for her - and herself was ignorant as to how she should proceed - I quote from report "Her total silence for so long a period is calculated to raise a strong presumption against the validity of her claim, which it will require a satisfactory explanation to remove" - I quote again from report "The proof of marriage prior to 1794, and of her identity as the widow of the individual named by Samuel Denny in his declaration for a pension as the lieutenant under whom he served, is satisfactory" - - - -
Now if Samuel Denny has stated the periods of Mrs Denny's services, amounting to six months or more - it would seem to me to be satisfactory - But you make the point of requiring record evidence of service of an officer - which is certainly a very proper one - as a rule - and yet in this case I submit that we can shew good cause why the rule should not be rigidly enforced - Viz
That you are officially cognizant of the fact, by report, that all of these Virginia Militia records have been destroyed - and with that admitted we offer then the next best evidence that we can Viz, The reference to statement of Samuel Denny made without reference to this claim - and I will add that from my information about Records at Richmond Va, I have no

Idea at all that we could find any evidence there - so I come back just where we started and know of no better evidence than statement of Samuel Denny - and having given furnished the best evidence that we can, it is for you - acting under your sense of duty to say whether you can waive the strict requirements of your office - so on the point of getting evidence from Richmond I will for the present admit that there is none there; promising of course to get it hereafter if I can; and claiming its benefits if any, I quote again from your report
Speaking of Samuel Denny's statement
"in which his brother Henry Denny was a lieutenant etc, etc, - you do not mention William Denny, except as quoted on preceding page hereof - and I wish you if you please to inform me as to whether this quotation of Henry is a mistake, and should not be William -
To sum up the matter, I would like to be informed as to whether the services of William Denny as referred to by Samuel amount to as much as six months - and I would also like to be informed as to whether you rigidly insist on observance of all of these requirements - if so, it would seem useless to go further
With your permission I will present the case in another aspect viz
I conclude that if we had claimed in rank of private and the same evidence was on file - that you would admit the claim - now if the services of William Denny as stated by Samuel amount to six months, or more I would respectfully suggest that the pension might be admitted as of that rank - especially

as the claimant is very old; and then if, before she dies we can get better evidence of rank as Lt, we can have the pension increased
Yours Respectfully
Commissioner Pensions Washington D. C.
C. H. Barkley

1 Treasury Department Third Auditor's Office Sept. 12 1861.
Sir:
In reply to your enquiry of the 27 th ulto I have to inform you that the pension of Samuel Denny, Indiana vol. Act June 7. 1832, has been paid in full to July 3. 1844, the date of his death.
Very Respectfully Your Ob d Serv t A. Plummer Auditor
C. H. Barkley Esq d Louisville Ky

(Copy)
"Pension Office
August 23 1861
"Sir
The claim of Mary Denny widow of William Denny under Act of 7th July 1838 has been received and filed.
She claims a pension under that act by virtue of her husband's services in the Virginia Militia in the revolutionary war; and she refers to the papers filed by Samuel Denny, a brother of her husband who drew a pension (under the act of 9th June 1832) for evidence of William Denny's service.
Twenty three years have elapsed since the passage of the act under which this claim is asserted, and during this period Mrs Denny has resided in an intelligent community where other widows have successfully urged their claim for pensions on account of their husband's revolutionary services, yet she has slept on her alleged rights until all of her witnesses, (especially Samuel Denny who could by their testimony have aided her in perfecting the proofs, are dead. Now she presents her claim for the first time and demands a pension with arrear, running back to the 4th of March 1836, without furnishing any evidence to support her allegations. Her total silence for so long a period is calculated to raise a strong presumption against the validity of her claim, which it will require satisfactory explanations to remove.
The case of Samuel Denny has been referred to, and it is found that he alleged six different terms of two months duration in the Virginia Militia at different times from March 1776 to Dec 1781 in a regiment commanded by Col John Smith and company commanded by Captain Mercer, in which his brother Henry Denny was a Lieutenant, and that on five of these terms, he served himself as 2 d Lieutenant.
His claim was allowed as a private on his own declaration, supported by no evidence. To justify an allowance as an officer, evidence of a commission or an appointment as such would have been required which was not furnished.
To warrant the admission of Mrs Denny's claim for the service of her husband as a Lieutenant, evidence of a commission and service

Should be produced from the Auditor General's Office at Richmond, Virginia, where records of Militia Line in the revolutionary war exist.
There is no such evidence in this office. I am aware of the difficulty of meeting this demand in the present condition of the country; but it is Mrs. Denny's misfortune that she has delayed the assertion of her rights till this difficulty has arisen; and the regulations of this office prohibit the allowance of a claim for the services as an officer, without record evidence.
The proof of marriage prior to 1794 and of her identity as the widow of the individual named by Samuel Denny in his declaration for a pension, as the lieutenant under whom he served, is satisfactory. John Smith drew a pension as a colonel, but he claimed no service like that described by Samuel Denny!" — etc., etc., (Copy)
"Sir
"Pension Office Sept 2 1861
In reply to your letter of 27 th ult, in relation to the claim of Mary Denny, widow of William Denny under Act 7 th July 1838, that the reasons assigned by you for her failure to make an earlier assertion of her claim are wholly insufficient, both in form and substance.
It is scarcely credible that she and those upon whom she may have been dependent "suffered herself to lapse upon her rights for so many years;" because she never had any one to attend to them for her, and was herself ignorant as to how to proceed! when it is well known that in every village some persons are found who are familiar with the pension laws and the manner of prosecuting claims, and when it is generally well known that numerous agents have for years been employed in traveling the country in search of such claims, whose circulars have also reached every Post Office in the United States.
Before a favorable adjustment of this claim can be made, the Denny being at the time with whom she has resided for many years past, should make a statement under oath and assign the reasons whatever they may be, for her failure to make an earlier application for a pension. This step is rendered all the more necessary on account of the deficiency of proof of her husband's services." etc., etc. Production of letter refers to my own loyalty — which I attribute to (Satisfactorily!)

Remarks, on the objections raised in this case,
First
As to Mrs Denny's neglect or delay.
I submit the accompanying statements of herself and Mr & Mrs. Galtier as satisfactory on that point as to her reasons.
Second
Deficiency of proof of husband's service -
Our only reliance - that we know of - is the evidence of Samuel Denny. You state that you allowed his claim on his own declaration - without any other evidence - in rank of private and he appears to have claimed service, amounting in all to one year - you do not state, how what amount of annuity he received, but we suppose that it was $40 per ann. for one year's service. We conclude that if you admit his statement of his own service; that you will admit his statement in regard to that of William Denny - at least so far as it relates to duration.
Third
As to rules of evidence concerning Commissioners , etc, I am prepared to admit the propriety - even necessity, of your rules as a general proposition; and while these are intended to, and do further the ends of justice, yet we can safely, as I think, claim, that in some special cases, their rigidity may be relaxed without any detriment to the cause which they are so well calculated to sustain; and I will respectfully submit to your consideration some reasons that appear to my mind to be sufficient to warrant, a relaxation of the rules in this special case; - It is a matter of which, as I suppose, you have official cognizance, that the Virginia Militia records of Revolutionary service are not in existence; to any extent worth counting, that

there was service of this kind is a historical fact. I was informed by letter from the Auditor at Richmond that a portion of those records was destroyed - perhaps during or very soon after the revolutionary war, and that the remainder went about year 1814; of these statements you, however, already are cognizant; so we are brought to the conclusion that service of this kind was performed, and it now remains to prove who performed this service; and relative rank of the actors. The claim that William Denny performed service as Lieutenant ; we shew, that we cannot procure documentary evidence, under existing state of affairs - we shew also, as I think that even if facilities by mail system we could not get such evidence; and we shew too, as I think, that we have not neglected any reasonable, probable, prospect of getting better evidence than we have - Even if witnesses were now living to testify to service of Mr Denny as an officer, it would be only parole evidence at best; and we will very respectfully submit, that we already have such evidence in the statement of Samuel Denny as above, and having as I think shown that we cannot get the higher kind of testimony; we rely on this under the ordinary rules and laws of evidence; and, will claim as above that you will at least admit it as to duration of service; and also under the circumstances of the case as to rank as Lieutenant ; because, they certainly must have had an officer of that rank and Mr Samuel Denny testifies as to who that officer was; and testifies in his own application, where it was his duty to name his superior officers; and even if he were now living he could most probably not testify more definitely than in his own claim; all of which on this point of rank we submit to you.
Identity and date of marriage you admit as satisfactory

Ninth
Identity and date of marriage you admit as satisfactory . I will now proceed to notice the points raised
Your second letter -
Fifth (from above)
Insufficiency of reasons as to form and substance, fully met by enclosed evidence as to form , and by same, and above statement as to substance I think
Sixth
Yours is not the only case that I have met with where neither claimant or friends knew how to proceed; and although it may seem incredible, it is actually so, as has no doubt been satisfactorily proven to your office many times
Seventh
Your expressed belief that in every village are some persons who are familiar with these things" - On that point I will merely observe that my experience in these matters, have led me, to no such conclusion - I have found very few men, that I thought qualified.
Eighth
As to numerous traveling agents, I have a few words, applying to them and to local agents: When they find easy cases, they are ready; but hard ones they go around or over; and in the cases where assistance is generally most needed, they are wanting, and this case of Mrs. Denny is just the kind of a one where they would not take hold. My rule is to undertake any case that I meet with where I think that there is a probability or even reasonable possibility of success; I may be wrong, but my conviction is that it is my duty to do so; and hence when I heard of this case I proceeded in it at once - In month of March last I went to see James Denny in Putnam County Indiana on another case; and while I was there, he and his wife told me of this case; and told me that Samuel Denny and William Denny were brothers and fellow soldiers or officers and I concluded at once that if Samuel Denny's case had been

October 9 th 1861
Commissioner Pensions Washington (D. C.)

Samuel Denny. }
William Denny. }
6 th March 1777. Served under Peter Babb
1 st - Captain Aaron Mercer 1 st Lieut. William Denny 2 nd Lieut., till 20 th June. in campaign against Indians. Brandywine Va. between Pittsburgh & Wheeling - discharged by Col. John Smith Col. of the 2 nd Regt. Militia James Kennedy Lieut Col. John Elkins Elkins Major.
2 nd Called out again same summer, under same officers, himself 2 nd Lieut in place of Peter Babb. on expedition 2 months & 3 days.
3 rd Latter part of August 1777. called into service. joined the main Army. was at the Battle of Brandywine. in the Battle of Germantown. town lasted 2 months.
4 th In 1778. in warm weather, again called out & marched to N. J. near the army at the Battle of Monmouth. engaged 2 months.
5 th Latter part of the same year in cold weather was em- ployed with his company. guarding British Prisoners stationed in the town of Winchester. 2 months.
6 th In 1781. was engaged with company in guarding British prisoners. 2 months.
In all these 5 times Capt Mercer commanded Co. & When Denny was 1 st Lieut. Samuel Denny 2 nd Lieut.

Confirmed as such by Thos Jefferson Eamon Va.
>

1 st 3. months - 14. days.
2 nd 2. " 3. "
3 rd 2. "
4 th 2. "
5 th 2. "
6 2. "  17. days. 13. "

Mary Denny widow of Will. Denny dec
Power of atty. from Barkley to McCalla
Watts Notarial authority is on file in pers. off.
McL
and deed and Jan 1900

Know all men by these presents That I, C. H. Barkley of Louisville Kentucky attorney of Mary Denny of Montgomery County Illinois, widow of William Denny, deceased do hereby constitute and appoint J. M. McCalla of Washington D. C., my true and lawful sub attorney for me and in my name to take full charge of the Pension and Bounty Land claims of said Mary Denny as widow aforesaid under Acts July 7 th 1838 - etc. etc. and Act March 3 rd 1855 respectively My said sub attorney is fully invested hereby, with all of my authority in cases aforesaid; and I hereby ratify and confirm all of his lawful acts and deeds in this behalf, and authorize him to receive any certificate or warrants that may issue in the cases Witness my name and seal on this 29 th day of January AD 1862
Attest Two Witnesses
C. H. Barkley (Seal)
Seal Affixed Adolph Schmitt

Jefferson County Kentucky Set,
Be it known that on this day before me a Notary Public in and for said County personally appeared G. H. Barney within named and acknowl- -ged the within power of Attorney to be his own act and deed. And I am disinterested
Witness my name and Notarial seal on this 29 th day of January 1862
A. A. Works

Pension Office
Sept. 23 d 1861
Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 27 th ult. in relation to the claim of Mary Denny widow of William Denny man act d 7 th July 1838, I have to inform you, that the reasons assigned to by you, for her failure to make an earlier assertion of her claim, are wholly insufficient, both in form & substance. It is scarcely credible, that she, & those upon whom she may have been dependent for a support, should have slept upon her rights for so many years, because "she never has had any one to attend to them for her, & was herself ignorant as to how she should proceed" when it is well known, that in every village, some one persons are found, who are familiar with the pension laws, and the manner of prosecuting claims; and when it is equally well known, that numerous agents have, for years, been employed in travelling the

country in search of such claims, and whose circulars have also reached every Post Office in the United States.
Before a favorable adjustment of this claim can be made, Mrs. Denny herself and those at with whom she has resided for many years past, should make a statement, under oath and assign the reasons, whatever they may be, for her failure to make an earlier application for a pension. This step is rendered all the more necessary, on account of the deficiency of the proof of her husband's service.
Under a rule, of recently adopted by the Secretary of the Interior, all correspondence on the part of this office with any individuals residing in  in the seceded states, is positively prohibited. Though, the state of Kentucky has not yet gone out of the union, yet as the disunion sentiment prevails there quite extensively there, it is deemed no more than just that an assurance of your loyalty should be given, by a reference to some one known to this office, before a certificate, in the event

of the allowance of this claim can be sent to you,
C. H. Barkley, Esq.
Louisville
Ky.

Samuel or Mr. Denny - Secrets or Secrets in hand of the Plantation House about Manchester N.P.

Sir
(copy)
" Pension Office
October 21 1861
The claim of Mary Denny widow of William Denny of Illinois, under the Act of 7th July 1838 has been again examined and I have to inform you that the proofs are not sufficient to warrant the allowance of a pension.
The only evidence adduced of the service of her husband in the revolution is contained in a statement made by his brother, Samuel Denny in his declaration for a pension, where in describing five different tours of Militia, he names the officers under whom he served, and among them his brother William Denny as 1 st Lieutenant.
But this evidence is not deemed sufficient to establish to establish a claim for a pension for the widow of William Denny for his services as such Lieutenant.
Samuel Denny himself claimed to have served as a Lieutenant in each one of his tours but he furnished no evidence either of a commission or service; and his claim was allowed as a private on his own unsupported declaration, that he served as a Lieutenant. His claim, if before this office now, would not be admitted at all, and no good reason appears for allowing him a pension for a grade in which he did not pretend to have served, though a good reason could be assigned for not granting a pension for the service which he did claim.
The rule then was, and now is to require record evidence of a Commission and services of an officer. The decision in that case will not be regarded as a precedent to control the action of this office in any other, and Mrs Denny must produce a commission of her husband William Denny as a Lieutenant, or record evidence of his appointment, as such and of his service in that grade, to justify the admission of her claim.
The error of the office in granting a pension as a private to her husband's brother, Samuel, when he claimed to have served as a Lieutenant, cannot be repeated for her benefit: for the service of her husband, William, if rendered at all, was as a Lieutenant and

in that grade should her pension be computed if granted.
Samuel Denny asserted that each militia tour of service was performed in a regiment commanded by Col. John Smith of the County of Winchester Va, — John Smith of that County drew a pension as a Colonel, but in his declaration he did not specify a single tour of service like that described by Samuel Denny, as having been performed under him. This discrepancy throws discredit upon his statements and renders it unavailable as evidence for his brother's widow. The claim is suspended until record evidence of a commission and service as a Lieutenant is presented
C. H. Barkley Esq
Louisville
Ky., "
Very Respectfully &c.
Jos H. Barrett
Commissioner "
Remarks.
I see no new points raised in the above, more than have been raised heretofore — and met fully as I believe — except that in former report you represent Samuel Denny as having claimed six tours; which you now reduce to five . — and you further play off on the common name of John Smith
In your favorable report of 2 nd ult, you say —
"Before a favorable adjustment of this claim can be made, Mrs Denny herself and those with whom she has resided for many years should make a statement under oath" — etc etc —
I comply fully with this requirement: and under all of the rules of good faith; I am entitled to this "favorable adjustment" — but according to your present position, you ought to have written to me that
"Before this claim can be "rejected", as we wish it

"to be, Mr Denny," etc, etc
The spirit of these reports satisfies me, that for some unaccountable reason, there is a prejudice in this case - probably of recent arising: or I cannot, on any other theory, account for your disregard of precedents etc; and it seems that you are determined to reject, any how
Under these circumstances I cannot consent to enter into any extended argument in the case; and referring to former letters and presentation of reasons, I respectfully request you to give to the case a re-examination; and if, upon, re-examination, you still feel constrained to reject or suspend; I respectfully request you to present the papers to the Secretary of Interior or other proper officer on appeal from your decision,
Yours Respectfully C H Barkley Louisville Kentucky October 25, 1861
Commissioner Pensions Washington D. C.

Louisville Kentucky October 25 1861
Sir
The spirit exhibited in your report on Mr Denny's case, and one or two others recently convinces me that one of two things obtain viz Either a captious & hair splitting system in your office — or some prejudice against me — If the latter, I would be pleased to hear your complaints or objections, and try to remove them
Yours Resp'y C H Barkley
Commissioner Pensions Washington
D C

Samuel or Mr. Denny - Details on merits in view of the Reinstated order about Amended N.P.

June 12, 1931
Mr. Walter Denny 5600 Arsenal Saint Louis, Missouri
Rev.& 1812 Wars Section AWF:MLB
Dear Sir:
You are advised that it appears from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim, R. 13730, that William Denny married, December 27, 1792, in Nelson County, Kentucky, Mary Shields. He died April 5, 1832, in Putnam County, Indiana. She moved to Montgomery County, Illinois, in the fall of 1859.
The widow, Mary, applied for pension, June 4, 1861, while a resident of Montgomery County, Illinois, aged eighty-seven years, and stated that her husband, William Denny, served in the Virginia militia as lieutenant; that he guarded the prisoners at Winchester, Virginia; in 1777 served near Pittsburgh; and in 1790 or 1791 was under Captain Job Hale against the Indians in the Northwest.
In the Revolutionary War pension claim of Samuel Denny (S. 32212) he states that his brother, William Denny, served as follows, in the Virginia troops: from March, 1777, two months as 2 nd lieutenant in Captain Peter Babb's company, Colonel John Smith's regiment, and was in a campaign against the Indians between Pittsburgh and Wheeling; later in 1777, four months as 1 st lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's company; in 1778, four months as 1 st lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's company; and in 1781, two months as 1 st lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's company, and guarded the British prisoners. Some of this service was under General Morgan.
Mary Denny was called upon to furnish, if possible, her husband's commission as lieutenant, but she died without completing her claim.

There are no data relative to the children of William and Mary Denny.
Very truly yours
E. W. MORGAN Acting Commissioner
His letter was forwarded to the Rec. Div. for reply relative to the record of Civil War soldiers - Alexander & Amiel are
June 12-31 Aug.

Rev. and 1812 Wars section.
January 13, 1927.
Miss Mary B. Denny DePauw University Greencastle, Ind
Madam:
I have to advise you from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim R. 13730, it appears that Mary Denny applied for pension June 4, 1861, while a resident of Montgomery County, Illinois, aged eighty-seven years, and stated that her husband, William Denny, served in the Virginia Militia as Lieutenant, that he guarded the prisoners at Winchester, Virginia; in 1777 served near Pittsburgh; and in 1790 or 1791 was under Captain Job Hale from Kentucky, against the Indians in the North West.
In the Revolutionary War pension claim of Samuel Denny (S. 32312), he states that his brother, William Denny, served as follows in the Virginia Troops- From March 1777, two months as Second Lieutenant in Captain Peter Babb's Company,

Colonel John Smith's Regiment, and was in a campaign against the Indians, between Pittsburgh and Wheeling; and later in 1777, four months as First Lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's Comapny; in 1778, four months as First Lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's Company; and in 1781, two months as First Lieutenant in Captain Aaron Mercer's Company, and guarded the British prisoners. Some of this service was under General Morgan.
She was called upon to furnish, if possible, his commission as Lieutenant, but she died without completing her claim.
It also appears in said claim of Mary Denny R 13750 (R1323000), that William Denny married, December 27, 1792 in Nelson County, Kentucky, Mary Shields. He died April 5, 1832 in Putnam County, Indiana. She moved to Montgomery County, Illinois in the fall of 1859.
There is no data on file relative to children.
Respectfully,
WINFIELD SCOTT Commissioner.