Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R 15350, John Hudson, Va.

SERVICE
Va.
Hudson, John Mary
R 15350
Va. Half Pay
CONTENTS

Power of Attorney

Know all men by these presents that I, John Hansper administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of John Henderson deceased do make, constitute and appoint John S. Stubbs of Norfolk county and the state of Virginia my sufficient & lawful attorney for me and in my name to prosecute to final adjournment a claim or claims that I may have and be en- titled to for commutation pay and interest as administrator aforesaid against the U.S. Govern- ment for military services rendered by the said John Henderson as a Captain in the Second Virgini- a State Regiment in the Revolutionary War, and the to receive the amount of said Government that may be adjudicated for said services, and a suitable acquittance and receipt for me and in my stead to execute and give for the same as ful- ly and to the extent that I might or could give, if acting personally, hereby agreeing to ratify and con- firm all lawful acts and things done by my said attorney touching the premises aforesaid. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 18 th day of May 1850
John Hansper adm te de bonis non with the (Seal) will annexed of John Henderson deceased State of Virginia, Norfolk Co. Wit:
J. John Nash

a justice of the peace for the county & state afore- said do hereby certify that John Hoarner, administra- tor de bonis non of John Henderson deceased, personally appeared before me, and in my presence signed, sealed and acknowledged the foregoing power of attorney to John S. Stubbs dated the 18 th day of May 1850 Given under my hand and seal this 18 th day of May 1850 -
John Nash JP
State of Virginia.
Norfolk County to wit:
I Arthur Emerson Clerk of the County Court of Norfolk County in the State of Virginia aforesaid do hereby certify that John Nash J.P. who has given the preceding certificate is a Justice of the peace in and for the County aforesaid duly commissioned and qualified to act as such according to the Constitution and Laws of this State
Given under my hand and the seal of the said Court this seventh day of June in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and fifty and of our Independence the seventy fourth -
Arthur Emerson
C.W.

Hudson's admr
v Comnth } Copy Ind. & documents

At a Superior Court of Law for Henrico County, held for the trial of Civil Causes, November 10 th 1830- John Harper admor de bonis non with the will annexed of John Hudson dec d . . . . . Appell t . against } Upon an appeal The Commonwealth } from a decision of the Auditor of Public Accounts refusing to allow a certain claim of the Appellants against the Commonwealth for services rendered by the said John Hudson in his lifetime as an Officer in the revolutionary war.
This day came as well the Appellant by his attorney as the Attorney General for the Commonwealth, and it appearing by the evidence on the part of the Appellant filed in this cause, that the said John Hudson was a Captain in the Second Virginia State Regiment in the revolutionary war, but became a Supernumerary before the close thereof, the Court is of opinion that the said John Hudson was entitled to half pay during his life, and that the Auditor of Public Accounts erred in rejecting the claim thereto, presented by the Appellant. It is therefore ordered that the said Auditor do issue and deliver to the Appellant a warrant on the Treasurer of this Commonwealth for the said half pay, to wit: from the 8 th day of February 1782, till the death of the testator, which occurred on the 12 th day of April 1790. From which Judgment the Attorney General for the Commonwealth prayed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which is allowed. And by consent as well of the Counsel for the Appellant as of the Attorney General, the agreement subjoined to the Judgment in the case of William Helme admor of Robert Crowne against the Commonwealth is to be made a part of the record in this cause.

To the Honorable W m Brockenbrough Judge of the Superior Court of Law for Henrico County
The petition of John Harper administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of John Hudson respectfully states - That the said John Hudson was an Officer of the Virginia State Line from an early period of the Revolution until the close of the war. He was a Captain in the second Virginia State Regiment, and at the reduction thereof became a supernumerary and remained as such until the close of the war without being required to reenter into actual service.
Hee never received the half pay or commutation due him, and your petitioner has applied to the Auditor therefor, but he refused to issue any warrant for it, and from that refusal Yr. Petitioner prays an appeal to this Court, and that Judgment may be entered for the half pay from the reduction of the regiment in 1781 to the 12 day of April 1790 at which latter period the said Hudson died, or for the commutation & interest thereon in lieu the half pay aforesaid
John Harper, adm: de bonis non with the will annexed of John Hudson
Whereas I John Hudson of the County of Norfolk & Town of Portsmouth did (while an Officer in the Army of America & then unmarried) make a will and give what property I was then possessed of to my Sisters Mary & Ann, both then living, and their heirs forever; and as I do not know where that will is & being since married to Mary daughter of William Smith of the aforesaid County & having received of said William Smith sundry negroes: which negroes I will to be equally divided amongst my wife Mary, & the child she is now pregnant with, & my two sons William Smith Hudson, John Iby Hudson, & my

debts, & it is my will & desire that the real property may be first sold by my Executors & I do appoint my wife Mary Hudson Executrix & William Smith Executor of this my last will & testament. Altho this may not be in due form of law, I hope that it will be received and recorded, as may be customary with wills in like cases, it being my own hand write, & I make all other wills heretofore made, null & void; Witness my hand and seal
Witnesses
J. Hudson
 Paul D. Luke  Amos Shepherd  John Donald 
At a Court held for Norfolk County the 18 th day Oct r . 1790. The last will and testament of John Hudson deceased was this day proved by the oath of Paul D. Luke & Amos Shepherd witnesses thereto, and ordered to be recorded.
Teste
Jn s Boush C.M.C.
Copy
Teste
W m Wilson C.C.
The deposition of Matthew Manning Esq r (of lawful age) who being first duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelist of Almighty God, deposeth and saith that he knew Capt. John Hudson. That Capt. John Hudson was always considered an Officer in the Revolutionary war. That said Capt. Hudson married Mary Smith and had several children by her, and died sometime about the year 1790. leaving his widow Mary Hudson and three children, to wit:

further saith that the said John I. Hudson married Catherine Sanier, and had a child called W m Smith Hudson Jr, and died leaving his mother Mary Hudson and his widow Catharine Hudson, and his son W m Smith Hudson Jr. That said Catharine Hudson afterwards married John Harper, and had two children, to wit: Marshall Harper and Emaline Harper - This deponent further saith that Mary Hudson the widow of Capt. John Hudson departed this life leaving her grandson W m Smith Hudson Jr. her sole heir at law, and that said W m Smith Hudson Jr. died. in the year 1824, leaving his mother Catharine Harper, and Marshall and Emaline Harper, the brother & sister of the half blood, his heirs at law. That said Marshall Harper in the year 1825 died leaving his mother Catharine Harper and his sister Emaline Harper and his father the said John Harper - That in the year 1827 the said Catharine Harper died leaving her husband the said John Harper & her daughter the said Emmaline Harper. Further this deponent saith not - M. Manning
Norfolk County, to wit:
This day personally appeared before me, W m B. Manning a justice of the peace for the County aforesaid, Matthew Manning Esq, who made oath that the facts in the foregoing deposition are true. Given under my hand and seal this 8 th day of January 1830.
W m B. Manning J. P.
I, James Henry Jr. of Norfolk County in the state of Virg a . Sixty three years of age, do hereby certify that I was well

G
continued his command until peace, and after peace, he was a Captain of the Militia Company which I was first attached to. That he died sometime about the year 1790 or 1791, the precise time I do not recollect. As witness my hand this twenty fourth day of April 1830. James Cheny sen:
Norfolk County, to wit:
The above affidavit subscribed and sworn to, before me, this twenty fourth day of April 1830
W m B. Manning J. P.
Norfolk County to wit:
This is to certify that Nickles + the deponent appeared before me, M. Manning a justice of the peace for the aforesaid County and made oath that he the said Nickles + was well acquainted with Col. John Hudson and that he, the said John Hudson died in the year 1790 on the twelfth day of April , given under my hand and seal this 25 th day of October 1830 M. Manning J.P.
State of Virginia - Henrico County, to wit;
I John Robinson, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Law for the said County, having in my possession the records and papers of the former Superior Court of Law for the said County of Harris, do certify that the preceding writing on the first page herof, is a copy of a Judgment entered in the last mentioned Court, and that the said Judgment was affirmed in the Court of Appeals. And further that the writing on the 3 rd & 4 th pages herof, are copies of certain documents filed in the case in which the said Judgment is entered.
J. Robinson
April 13 th 1850
Fees for three copies, & searches $1.64 3/4 Cents

October 12, 1937
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
John Hudson, R.15350 BA-J/MCS
Mrs. June Hudson Balch 1418 Mulberry Street Abilene, Texas
Dear Madam:
Reference is made to your request for information relative to John Hudson of Virginia who served as an officer during the Revolutionary War.
The data which follow were obtained from papers on file in Revolutionary War pension claim, R.15350, based upon the military service of John Hudson in that war.
The date and place of his birth and the names of his parents were not shown in the papers of the pension claim.
John Hudson entered the service October 17, 1776, was captain in the Second Virginia State Regiment and on February 6, 1782, became a supernumerary officer. After the Revolutionary War, he served as captain in the militia.
At one time, he resided in Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia. He died April 12, 1790.
This soldier married, date not stated, Mary, the daughter of William Smith of Norfolk County, Virginia.
His widow, Mary, and the following children survived him: William Smith Hudson, Elizabeth Bressie Hudson and John Irby Hudson.
Said John Irby Hudson married Catharine Lanier. They had a son, William Smith Hudson, Junior.

William Smith Hudson and his sister, Elizabeth Bressie Hudson died many years prior to 1830, without issue and were survived by their mother, Mary, and brother, John Irby Hudson. John Irby Hudson died leaving his mother, Mary, his widow, Catharine, and his son, William Smith Hudson, Junior.
Said Catharine Hudson later married John Harper and they had two children: Marshall Harper and Eualine or Emmaline Harper.
The soldier's widow, Mary Hudson, died leaving her grandson, William Smith Hudson, Junior. He died in 1824. Said William Smith Hudson was survived by his mother, Catharine, and his half brother and sister named above. Marshall Harper died in 1825 and his mother died in 1827. She was survived by her husband, John Harper and her daughter, Ebaline or Emmaline Harper.
On June 6, 1850, John Harper, administrator of the estate of John Hudson, applied under the Act of July 5, 1832, for half-pay on account of the Revolutionary War service of John Hudson. The claim was not allowed as the soldier had received his half-pay from the State of Virginia and there was no title under the above noted act.
The soldier referred to his sisters, Mary and Ann.
Very truly yours
A. D. HILLER Executive Assistant to the Administrator

1907 Nov. 6. Mrs Mary J. Galloway furnished list. and
1911, Apr 1 - Hist. to Mrs. C. W. Pettigrew
1916 Apr. 21. Hist. to Mrs. Taylor Bruffet. &
1922 Feb. 20. Hist. to M. W. Boyd. 1926 Aug. 19. Hist. to A. W. Slorer
1930. Jan. 2. Hist. to Rector Hudson
1934 July 25. Hist. to Mrs H. Hargis - ECH
1937 Oct. 18. Hist. to Mrs. June Hudson Bales
1939, Aug. 9 - Mr. Rector Hudson advised no further info. rel. to this pol. M.H.H.
NO
_____
3164
John Hudson Capt.
2 nd Va Line Revolution
Discharged _____, 18
4064
! - 0
N o Pay _____ Act. 32
Received _____, 187
Attorney.

June 10/50
John Hudson died
Captain
2 nd Va State Reg t
for Commutation

Papers in the case Hudson's adm. &c.

John Hudson dec d Capt V a State line
Half-pay case
act 5 July 1832)
Hudson rec d his half-pay from the State of V a & is not intitled to any such claim as the one preferred within
See Letter to John Harper 26 May 1852.

$1636. was Paid to the Drown in 1783. as appears by the Auditor's Books - at Richmond
Write To
St. Johns River Stephen

Capt John Hudson entered the Army in 17 th Oct r 1776. the Virginia state line -
The proof of this claim is filed in the pension office - of Pennsylvania - and the record in the case of Hudson & wd o vs State of Virginia -
Act of assembly Virginia Act. Nov r 1781. 19 th .

August 9, 1939
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Am JOHN HUDSON R. 15350 BA-J/1887:MLB
Mr. Rector Hudson 620 West Penn Street Butler, Pennsylvania
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to your letter in which you request the Revolutionary War record of Jack Jouette and that of Lieutenant John Hudson.
There is only one claim for pension on file based upon service in the Revolutionary War of a John Hudson who served as a commissioned officer, which is that of Captain John Hudson of Norfolk County, Virginia. This office has no further information in regard to that officer than was furnished you January 3, 1930, as shown in the claim for pension, R. 15350, based upon his service in the Revolutionary War, nor any record of a Jack or John Jouette.
Very truly yours
A. D. HILLER Executive Assistant to the Administrator

July 25, 1934
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BA-J/XXXX/col John Hudson-R.15350
Mrs. H.C.Hargis 315 East 8 th Street Pawhuska, Oklahoma
Dear Madam:
Reference is made to your letter in which you request information in regard to John Hudson, of Virginia, wife, Mary, who served as a captain in the Revolutionary War.
The data which follow were obtained from the papers on file in Revolutionary War pension claim, R.15350, based upon the military service in that war of John Hudson.
The date and place of birth and the names of the parents of John Hudson are not shown in the papers in the pension claim.
John Hudson entered the service October 17, 1776, was captain in the 2 nd Virginia State Regiment and on February 6, 1783, became a supernumerary officer. After the Revolutionary War, he served as captain in the militia.
At one time, he resided in Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia. He died April 12, 1790.
The soldier married, date not stated, Mary, the daughter of William Smith, of Norfolk County, Virginia.
His widow, Mary, and three children survived him: William Smith Hudson, Elizabeth Bressie Hudson and John Irby Hudson.
Said John Irby Hudson married Catharine Lemier. They had a son, William Smith Hudson, Junior.
William Smith Hudson and his sister, Elizabeth Bressie Hudson died many years prior to 1830, without issue and were survived by their mother, Mary, and brother, John Irby Hudson. John Irby Hudson died leaving his mother, Mary, his widow, Catharine, and his son, William Smith Hudson, Junior.

Said Catharine Hudson later married John Harper and they had two children: Marshall Harper and Emaline(or Emaline) Harper.
Soldier's widow, Mary Hudson, died leaving her grandson, William Smith Hudson, Junior. He died in 1824. Said William Smith Hudson was survived by his mother, Catharine, and his half brother and sister named above. Marshall Harper died in 1825 and his mother died in 1827. She was survived by her husband, John Harper and her daughter, Emaline Harper.
On June 6, 1850, John Harper, administrator of the estate of John Hudson, applied under the Act of July 5, 1832, for half-pay on account of the services of John Hudson in the War of the Revolution. The claim was not allowed as the soldier had received his half-pay from the State of Virginia and there was no title under the above noted act.
The soldier referred to his sisters, Mary and Ann: there are no further data in regard to them.
Very truly yours
A. D. MILLER Assistant to Administrator.

January 3, 1930.
Rector Hudson 620 West Penn Street Butler, Pennsylvania.
Rev.& 1812 Wars Section MMHF:ill
Dear Sir:
You are advised that it appears from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim, R. 15350, that John Hudson entered the service October 17, 1776, was Captain in the Second Virginia State Regiment and on February 6, 1782, became a supernumerary officer. After the Revolutionary War he served as Captain in the militia.
At one time he resided in Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia. He died April 12, 1790.
He married, date not stated, Mary, daughter of William Smith of Norfolk County, Virginia.
His widow Mary and three children survived him: William Smith Hudson, Elizabeth Bressie Hudson and John Irby Hudson.
Said John Irby Hudson married Catharine Lanier. They had a son, William Smith Hudson, Junior.
William Smith Hudson and his sister Elizabeth Bressie Hudson died many years prior to 1830, without issue and were survived by their mother Mary and brother John Irby Hudson.
John Irby Hudson died leaving his mother Mary, his widow Catharine and his son, William Smith Hudson, Junior.
Said Catharine later married John Harper and they had two children: Marshall Harper and Emaline (or Emmaline) Harper.
Soldier's widow Mary Hudson died leaving her grandson, William Smith Hudson, Junior. He died in 1824.

Said William Smith Hudson was survived by his mother Catharine and his half brother and sister named above.
Said Marshall Harper died in 1825, and his mother died in 1827. She was survived by her husband John Harper and her daughter, Emmaline Harper.
On June 6, 1850, John Harper, administrator of the estate of John Hudson, applied under the Act of July 5, 1832, for half-pay on account of the services of John Hudson in the War of the Revolution. The claim was not allowed as the soldier had received his half-pay from the State of Virginia and there was no title under the above named act.
LL The Revolutionary War records of this bureau fail to afford any information in regard to a Charles Hudson who served as Quartermaster in the Virginia troops.
Very truly yours,
E. W. MORGAN, Acting Commissioner.
Soldier's sister Mary & am referred to

rs Section
aw
August 19, 1936.
Miss Agnes W. Storer, 230 Baldwin St. New Brunswick, N. J.
Madam:
I have to advise you, that on June 6, 1850, John Harper, administrator of the estate of John Hudson, applied under the Act of July 5, 1832, for half-pay on account of the services of John Hudson in the War of the Revolution. The claim was not allowed as the soldier had received his half-pay from the State of Virginia and there was no title under the above noted act.
From the papers in the claim, it appears that John Hudson entered the service, October 17, 1776, was Captain in the Second Virginia State Regiment, became a supernumerary officer, February 6, 1782 and after the Revolution was a Captain of Militia.
At one time he resided at Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia. He married, date not stated, Mary, daughter of William Smith of Norfolk County, Virginia.
Captain John Hudson died April 12, 1790, leaving his widow Mary and three children: William Smith Hudson, Elizabeth Bressie Hudson and John Irby Hudson, who married Catherine

Rev. & 1812 War R. 15350
tharine Lanier and had a son William Smith Hudson, Junior.
The Revolutionary War records of this Bureau fail to afford any information in regard to a Charles Hudson who served as Quartermaster in the Virginia Troops.
Respectfully,
E. W. MORGAN, Acting Commissioner.

Rev. War Section.
April 21, 1916.
Mrs. Taylor Bruffett Mount Sterling, Ohio.
Madam:-
In response to your letter dated the thirteenth instant, you are advised that on June 6, 1850, John Harper, the administrator of the estate of John Hudson, applied under the Act of July 5, 1832, for half-pay, for the services of John Hudson in the Revolutionary War. The claim was rejected on the ground that the soldier had received his half-pay from the State of Virginia, and was not entitled under the above-noted Act.
From the papers in said claim (R. File 15,350), it appears that John Hudson entered the service October 17, 1776; was Captain in the Second Virginia State regiment; became a supernumerary officer February 6, 1782; and after the Revolution was a militia Captain. At one time he resided at Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia; he married (date not stated) Mary daughter of William Smith of Norfolk County, Virginia.
Captain John Hudson died April 12, 1790, leaving his widow Mary and three children: William Smith Hudson, Elizabeth Bressie Hudson, and John Irby Hudson who married Anna Catharine Lanier and had a son William Smith Hudson Junior.
Very respectfully Conr

Butler, Pa., Feb. 4, 1939.
Attention - Rev. & 1812 Wars Section
Dear Sirs:
If permissable could you let me have any data you have on file in connection with the services of or John  Jack Jouette and Lieu. John Hudson during the Revolutionary war, as we owe it to these two men that Jefferson was not captured by the British at his Monticello home, Charlottesville, Va., on the morning of June 4th, 1781.
As Jefferson has been so honored by the Administration with the issuance of the 3¢ stamp and the nickel and the starting of Jeffersonian memorial at Washington, I am making an effort to have these two men mentioned in a sketch should it be contemplated by the Administration and am gathering all the data I can accordingly. So far I am very much encouraged.
It is stated that Captain John Martin with two hundred men were stationed at Charlottesville when Tarleton with his dragoons rode in at full speed, but thought it better to retire.
From data at hand it seems that some served in the CONTINENTAL LINE AND OTHERS IN THE STATE LINE. Could you tell me what the difference was.
Thanking you for your courtesy, I am,
Sincerely,
Rector Hudson, #620 West Penn Street, Butler, Penna.
Veterans Administration, Bureau of Pensions, Washington, D. C.

Abilene Texas September 4. 1937
Veteran's Administration Washington, D.C. Gentlemen;
I would like to secure any information you may have in regards to John Hudson 68 K int Virginia who was an officer of this John Hudson drew a pension for service in the Revolution war will you please send me a copy of his pension record with his certificate no. also etc
I will appreciate an early reply.
Very truly yours,
Mrs June Hudson Bales 1418 Mulberry St Abilene Texas.

Daughters of the American Revolution
Pawhuska Chapter
Pawhuska, Oklahoma
July 12 - 1934
Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir: —
I wish to ask you if John Hudson of Virginia applied for & got a Pension - His wife was named Mary - Revolutionary War: -
I copy what the War Dept wrote, hoping it might help you in your search of the records.
"The records of this office show that one John Hudson served in the Revolutionary War as Lieutenant in Captain Thomas Bressie's Company, 2 d Virginia State Regiment, commanded by Colonel Gregory Smith and later by Col. William Brent. The period of his service is not shown. His name is first borne on the Company Pay Roll, covering the period from June 1 to July 1 - 1778.
He was commissioned Captain Oct 1 - 1778 - and his name is last borne on the Company Muster Roll for November 1779 dated Camp Philadelphia, Dec. 17 - 1779 and has remark "Light Infantry".
E. T. Conley
Brigadier General,
Acting The Adjutant Genl.
(over)

I do wish I could find where he enlisted or lived during Revolution or the names of his children.
Will you be kind enough to send the names if you have them
Thanking you for all trouble this causes you.
Very Sincerely,
Mrs H. C. Bargas -
315 East 8th St
Parrhuska Okla
I am trying to straighten out a line for membership in the D. A. R.

Butler, Pa., Dec. 4th, 1930.
Pension Department, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:
I am advised by the War Department as follows:
The collection of Revolutionary War Records in this office is far from complete and it is suggest ed as a possibility that additional information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D.C.
This refers to my 2nd great Grandfather, Captain John Hudson, born before 1750 and died 1801. He married a Miss Barbour or Barber who died before 1801. He served in the 2nd Virginia State Regiment.
John Hudson was from Albemarle County, Virginia, and I thought may be if he or his wife had been pensioned that the valuable data would be obtained.
He was a Lieutenant at the start of the war and was in the light infantry. not as
He had a brother by the name of Charles Hudson, who was Quarter Master of the 14th Virginia during the Revolutionary war, from Albemarle County, who married James Lewis. May be they were pensioned.
If I am not breaking any rules of your Department in asking you to look up to see if you could furnish me any data regarding the above two Hudsons, I would thank you to look them up. I would prefer Captain John Hudson if only one can be given.
Thanking you for your courtesy in this matter and any trouble in replying, I am,
Yours very truly,
Rector Hudson Rector Hudson, #620 West Penn Street, Butler, Penna.
If any genealogy is contained in application for the pension, I certainly would appreciate it.

230 BALDWIN STREET NEW BRUNSWICK NEW JERSEY
June 13, 1926
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Pensions - Rev. 1812 War Section
Will you be kind enough to send me the Pension record of Captain John Hudson , who fought in Virginia State Militia, and afterwards, I think, received Bounty Land in Kentucky. Also record of Charles Hudson , Quarter- master 14 th Va. Regiment.
Yours very truly, Miss Agnes M. Street.

ask. Mar. 31, 1911
MAR 27 1911

519 N. 5 th ave.
Price Bluff. Ark.
Mar. 22-1911
Commissioners of Pensions Washington D.C.
Dear Sir:
Will you kindly send me a copy of the Pen- sion papers of John Hud- son of Albemarle Co. Va. who was killed in Capt. Thos. Bre- lies Co. 2 nd Va. State Reg. com- manded by Col. Gregory Smith. Revolutionary War. July 1778, in Oct. 1 st 1778 he was commissioned as Capt. of the State Militia.

also of Nathaniel Born - ett of Amherst Co. Va. but moved to Ga. near Columbia was captured by the Brit- ish and confined in the Augusta jail: was rescued by Gen. Elijah Clark after a great deal of suffering. he was the father of Capt. Wm Bornett & Joel Born- ett.
Thanking you in ad- vance for your kind- ness.
I am Sincerely. Mrs. C. W. Pettigrew

Old War & Navy 3-1883.
Division.
Department of the interior Bureau of Pensions Washington D. C.
V. Warner Commissioner.
Kind Sir - My object in writing is this . I am eligible to join "National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution"! & I want to prove it. I know it from family history over.

John Henderson was my Grand Father - & served in Revolutionary Army - his Officer's hat & coat was kept as a relic for a long time I think he enlisted in Va. at one time he lived in state of Delaware - My Grand Mothers name was Mary W m Donald Henderson - I was named for her - she died when my Father was three days old. My Grand Father married again - & my aunts & Father lost the old Bible - & all the Records - that gave - where he enlisted - who his Officers were &c... but Aunt Lidia one of his oldest children - always said he enlisted in Va. was a Capt. & was through all the war. My Father lived to be 85. I thought by writing to your Bureau - I might learn & get proof, of what I know from my Father & his sisters. Very Respectfully Mrs Mary J. Galloway. Oct 24-07 vilos Ga.

14736
RECORD JAN 31 1922 DIVISION

Portland Ore.
Jan 22. 1922.
Commissioner of Pensions Recd. Washington D.C.
Have you any record of did Captain John Hudson of the Second Virginia State Regiment Revolutionary War. who served under Col. Burt & Col. William Smith. draw a pension. I also kindly beg me his Rev. War Recd. Thanking you & M rs H ud son.
Very Truly,
Margaret H. Boyd. 589 William Ave Portland Ore.

Dept. of Interior.
Rev Sec
H
Bureau of Pensions.
Dear Sir, -
Please send me a copy of the original pension application of Capt. John Hudson a soldier of the Revolution, enlisting from Virginia. There were several John Hudsons in our War, but the others I believe were privates .
Respectfully, (Mrs.) Faylor Bruffet, Mt. Sterling Ohio.
April 13, 1916.

Letter

Portsmouth, Virginia, 7th June 1880
Sir.
I enclose to you a record of Henrico county superior Court of law in a suit of John Hooper adms de bonis non with the will annexed of John Hendon, deceased - and power of attorney in fact to me with authority to prosecute in his behalf and sue with the missp  for the commutation pay of five years full pay in lieu of the half pay by him already received, and if paid, to be discharged by its payment to me as said attorney - with a legal agreement carefully prepared - setting forth the grounds upon which the five years full pay & interest is claimed - to which I invite your careful as well as strict attention. The amount claimed is embodied in the following statement to wit:
  Five years full pay of Capt in the Revolutionary war at $480 per year $2400.00   Interest to the 8 th May 1833 - When the warrant for half pay issued - a period of 43. 1. 26 Yrs Mo D 6211.60   Principal & interest at that time $8677.60   By half pay then paid $1964.00 -----   The balance on the 8 th May 1833 $6647.60   Interest to the 7 th June 1880 6813.78   To amount claimed at this date $13461.38 

After giving this claim and the reasons upon which its payment is proposed your serious attention, advise me of the determination to which you arrive by letter - should not by my personal attention in Washington dispense with this medium of intelligence
I am yours, Obed Sedgwick John S. Stubbs, and in fact for John Hosper
No. 13. Should you require the certificate of the judge or presiding judge seal of the Court with the certificate of the judge that J. Robinson was clerk of the court at the time the record was furnished - enclose the same to me that I may have the same answered and certified to J. Stubbs
J. L. Edwards Esq Clerk of Pensions.

John Harper Virginia
enquiry about Capt John Hudson's claim.

Portsmouth
Sir
January 24 th 1852
Please send me a copy of the Revolutionary Account of Captain John Hudson as settled between him and the Commonwealth of Virginia as a Lieutenant in Continental State line to the time of his promotion as Captain Also please to send me a Statement of the settlement of his Captain's Account at the time he left the Army & With Great Respect &c
John Harper
James E. Heath Commissioner of Pensions, Washington D.C.

Washington, May 24, 1832
Sir
Inclosed herewith, I send you a letter from Mr. John Harper, of Portsmouth, Va. in relation to the Revolutionary account of Capt. John Hudson - with a memorandum.
I have been requested, as a friend, to present you this, and request an early answer. I will take it as a favor if you will make the answer within the next two or three days, and send it to my care.
I am very respectfully and truly Yours,
Alan Bland
James E. Heath Esq.
Col. P. P. Pennycuick.

Portsmouth
May 17th 1852
Dr Sir
I inclosed to you some time ago The Revolutionary Account of Captain John Harrison for final Settlement. The Account was prepared for me by Mr John S Stubbs, as provided by the following Acts of the general Assembly of Virginia, first the act of November 1781, 19th chapter first Second and Eleventh Sections and the act of October 1782, first chapter and first Section which you will find in Kennings Statutes at large of the above dates. The act of 1785 gave the officers who had not received any half pay five years full pay and interest tho' I must also claim from the government and credit the account with the amount from the State. please let me hear from you on the Receipt of this Communication if any thing further is necessary to be done
I am very Respectfully yours
James Harper Jas E Heath Esqr Commissioner of Pensions Washington D.C.

10 June 1852
John Harper
about claim of Capt John Hudson of the Va State Line

Portsmouth June 10 th 1852
Dr Sir
Yours of the 27 th ultimo has been Rec d in which you inform me there is no authority given to your office to pay claims of such a character as the one presented by me in the case of Capt John Henderson The Act of Congress appropriating all the debts Virginia owed to her Revolutionary officers and soldiers is a sufficient guarantee for the commission of pensions to pay these claims when ever they are properly presented without giving the State or Federal government any further trouble The Acts of the legislature of which you charge me with charge me with misapprehending has been misapprehended by you in not taking time to give them a due examina- ation, They are too plain to be misunderstood no claims can never be more wrongfully paid than the half pay claims under the Act of 1780 as Recognised by Congress under the Act of July 1832 The Act of 1780 gives half pay for life to the officers of the Continental State line — only, provided they Remained in Service until the end of the war The State line officers are not included in this Act The Act of November 1781 intitled the officers Soldiers Sailors and Marines in the service of the state to every thing to which the continental State line was intitled This half pay Act of 1780 under which you have been paying these half pay claims expired in 1785 turn over

In 1785 the Pennsylvania legislature took up this subject again and in their pay  perceivable say that half pay was not sufficient compensation for the long and valuable services of these officers in the purchase of American liberty and passed an Act giving them five years full pay with interest as soon as their might be in order that time I therefore call upon you as the commissioner of pensions for five years full pay and interest in the case of Capt John Hudson under the Act of 1785 and about 1964 dollars R.D. as half pay please write me as soon as you examine this communication or within a few days after if possible }
I am very Respectfully yours
John Harper
Col. E. Heath Esqr Commissioner of Pensions Washington D.C.
PS if you wish to see the Act of 1785 you will find it I presume in Hennings Statutes at large of that date, if not write to Mr Monford for a copy of it from the Journal of the House  1785 page 307 There was no half pay and Hudson nor any other officer after 1785 but five years full pay and interest } J.H.

Portsmouth, Virginia June 6 th 1830
Sir:
In submitting to you the claim of John Harpur administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of John Harpur deceased, who was a captain in the 2 d Va State Regiment in the Revolutionary war, asking for the commutation of five years full pay and interest thereon under the act of 1779 - explained by the declaratory act of 1790 - Who has as you observe already received the half pay of said Officer under a decision of the Superior Court of Henrico county pronounced 10 th day of Nov. 1830 & confirmed by the court of appeals of Va 13 th Dec 1832, I deem it expedient to file with that application a legal statement of the grounds upon which the same is made and the equitable considerations upon which its payment is pressed - based, without constructive variation, upon the same statutory provisions under which officers of that war who served to the 22 d of April 1783 have received their commutation & interest, governed by the same immutable laws of equity and construction of intention that doubtless, at the time of the passage of the act of 1779 - was the prevailing motive influencing the action of that wise and patriotic Legislature who desired to render a

fair equivalent to all who had sacrificed their lives & fortunes; forsaken the comforts and allurements of home & rendered the most arduous & self sacri= ficing services to their country in the most gloomy and trying hour of her need - as well as to tender a token of gratitude to those that would  may be a lasting memorial for the part they had acted in the bloody contest through which they had already passed; to serve as a stimulant in approaching conflicts to achieve, if possible, their object so inauspiciously begun & which was subsequently so gloriously accom= plished - a result that has made us the most fa= vored nation of the earth & I trust a chosen vessel for the ultimate happiness & success of all others. It may have also had in view an incentive to the rising generation, the inspiration for laudable ambition, to increase the love of country, to prompt a desire & create promptness of action in repelling foreign invasion; a readiness to redress their country's wrongs with a full knowledge of the grate= tude of the republics and especially that of the U.S. for the meritorious services of her citizens.
You discover by the record herewith transmitted, the evidence of the service as well as the time when it expired, that John Hudson became a supernumerary the 6th Feb. 1782. The grounds

of refusal to pay the claims of supernumeraries, as the separantment heretofore, I learn to be based upon the decisions cited in the, 1st Leigh, 516- Case of Shorthorn 20-525- Lyle's - and Munton's ad d the Cor- monwealt h  1st Leigh , 36- Where the same has now been referred to those who served to the 22 d April 1783 yet the very act and its proviso that confers the pay to one bestows the same upon the other, for unless the service had been to the end of the war neither would be entitled either to half pay or five year's full pay & subsistence - if the literal reading of the act itself is to be guaranteed regarded - and if not but construed after the manner of our courts then I conceive that all supernumeraries that became such after the 19 th day of October 1781 under the Act of 1777 reducing the Battalions of the store line of Va & who held themselves in readi- ness to enter the service if required - but who did not because no necessity for their services afterwards arose, were doubtless entitled to be ranked in the same category with those who remained in actual service till the Governor's proclamation on the 22 d of April 1783 - and to have placed any other construc- tion upon this act seems evident to my mind a forced - not a natural one; and whilst I yield, with great deference to the decisions of our courts of appeals, I discover no error on the part of the general govern-

ment in assuming the payment of the claims of the citizens of this state for which she was bound in re- versing an original decision made against this most meritorious class of officers - which she had voluntarily placed in this condition; and after they had rendered all the service in which this state stood in need; and evened the which I humbly conceive the state itself evidently intended they should receive where they held their commissions and themselves in readiness to act if again called upon. But let us briefly re- view these decisions and the points at issue - which I trust will not be considered by you just grounds for refusing this application. The case of Markham it appears was the first reported case in the court of appeals & reported as one of reference, & to govern future decisions in the court below from appeals from the auditor's decision; & there was only three points really raised before the court upon which its opi- nion could be given; & referred to naval services as in Lilly's case that follows, and that of Stewart and the case of  Stewart . Three points raised in Mark- ham's case were these. 1 st Whether an officer of the Va state navy - taken prisoner in 1781 - & remained a pris- oner unexchanged during the war, was entitled to half pay for life under the act of 1779 - 2 d Those entitled to half pay for life, not entitled to interest & Third that officers of the navy entitled to half pay were not entitled to the

commutation of five years pay & interest in lieu of half pay for life. The last of these points however came up after the opinion of Judge Green had been delivered and was really not before the court proper and cannot be considered really as a part of that deci- sion (I should have said after his opinion (not as was given) yet after the point was raised at bar - the question proper whether officers generally who be- came supernumerary before the actual end of the war were entitled was not raised - but whe- ther Markham is a drus  drus for the business as a captain the navy was entitled. and this seems to be the point * which was decided that under the act of 1790 - he was not so you clearly perceive that decision if worth any thing - and which I should humbly question - decided the commutation pay and interest against naval officers - not those of the service on continental line - taking doubtless the reduction and reorganisation of the navy under the provisions of the Legislature of 1780 - as a guide & drawing too nice a distinction between service and actual service as Markham had been taken prisoner while in command of the Grafton and been discharged upon his parole of honor, & could not again enter the service against Great Britain while he remained under that obligation disability. They accor- dingly decided that he was a supernumerary and en- titled to half pay; by what construction, however, I

am at a loss to say, under the act of 1779. Sully's case seems to be decided upon the same principles as Mark- ham's See 12 th Leigh 525: and I would call your atten- tion to the argument of Judge Coar, but while I do not fully concur with him. I am much inclined to induce me to think, had not the case of Markham been already decided. his opinions reasoning & conclusions might have been more conclusive in favour of the supersumerary - this was the case also of a naval officer. The case of Morton's adms is a case so far that more in point but seems to be decided upon the principles settled in the two preceding cases - 9 th Leigh 1 36 although the actual time of his service does not seem to be more fully & satisfactorily proved, which to some ex- tent influenced the question whether half pay for life or five years full pay & interest should be al- lowed. Admitting that the act of 1779 provides that com- mutation of five years should be allowed full pay and interest should be allowed only to those who have served to the end of the war - it seems quite evident to my mind that an erroneous construction has been given to the phraseology "to the end of the war" and the distinction ought to have been drawn between actual hostilities and the proc- lamation of peace; for while some hostile acts were perpetrated by some naval forces, put upon under the command of Philips and Arnold, hostilities

had virtually ceased after the 19 th day of Oct. 1781 - & according to common acceptation of the phrase "end of the war" the war was at an end - although peace was not proclaimed until the 22 nd of April 1783 - And which I contend under the Act of 1779 - as half pay for life was granted to supernumeraries - who became such after the passage of that Act and who were required again to enter the service, by the decisions of our courts - they were also entitled to interest - so do I also contend that the cessation of active hostilities was the termination or end of war and the time construction that should be given to the time meant in the words of the Act of 1779 - and that an error has been committed in confounding the end of the war with the proclamation of peace on the 22 nd of April 1783.
I therefore contend first, that the Act of 1779 intended to place supernumeraries, who retained their commissions & held themselves in readiness to enter active service, upon the same footing as to pay, emoluments and advantages - as those officers who were retained in actual service to the end of the war.
Second - That the court of appeals of this state in deciding they were entitled to half pay for life notwithstanding the Act of 1779 - says provided they shall be required to enter the service again and serve to the end of the war - although the same was not required by them by the state, virtually

acknowledged their right to claim five years full pay and interest in lieu of half pay.
Third - That the holding of their commissions and themselves so ready to enter to the service, if required so to do, was to serve - or no service to the end of the war.
And Fourth - That the constructive clause, "to the end of the war" was the period when active hostilities ceased between the belligerent parties - to wit, the 19 th day of Oct 1781 - and not the 22 nd day of April 1783 - the period of the proclamation of peace. When did John Hudson become a supernumerary? The 6 th Feb. 1782 - and when did active hostilities cease? on the 19 th day of Oct. 1781 - nearly five months after this date, and little more than twelve months before the 22 nd government's proclamation of peace - By the petition of his administrators to judge Provenza from the Auditor's decision - you discover that John Hudson entered the for war at an early period thereof, & was in active service until a further reduction of the Army was made, after the close of the conflict of 19 th Oct. 1781 - and this reduction was in accordance with the act of 1777 - and the act of 1779 - roundly appropriated to give new recruits for the service and to increase the number and zeal for those who were retained under the reduction of 1778 - so you discover

by the record that John Hudson was or must have been in the service prior to 1779- and remained in actual service until the 6th Feb 1782- retiring upon the further reduction of the Army after the virtual cessation of hostilities, & complying in every feature with the conditions of the Act of 1779- for the language of the statute gives the for half pay to the Officers who were in at the time of its passage, as well as to those who might enter by virtue thereof- and the reduction of the Army by the state was to rid herself of half the pay for which she was bound- not, I conceive, to impair the contract she had made with her Officers; and as the act was intended to operate more prospectively and than retroactively- she could not impair the or annul the contract with any subjecting herself to the strict fulfilment of the same. She was now over to be the judge of the termination of hostilities as at the end of the war; and the whole history of that period proclaimed that her whole force was un- necessary- in the light of this reduction Moreover these Officers did not retire volun- tarily but by compulsion- and the phrase in the act of 1779- "service to the end of the war" must have referred more to the act of the Officer himself in bringing about his retirement- than to the act of the state; for if the state could free herself from the payment of one set of meritorious Officers- in the payment of half pay for life under the act of 1779

or five years full pay and interest in lieu thereof, in a spirit of magnanimous means - to free herself from the payment of a large debt in respect of the act This act - she could with as much propriety have retained only one officer after the expiration of ac- tive hostilities on the 19th Oct 1781 - to the pro- clamation of peace 22 d April 1783 - for the ser- vices of those retained after the reduction of 1781 was of but little more benefit than those of one would have been - as to this later reduction time is clear - was more the desire of diminishing her expenses - than very great encouraging - and quite accumulating - than a disposition to forfeit to the retiring officers, by her own act - the emoluments and advantages secured to those who were more for- tunately retained in actual - but not in active service. As it regards a contract there must be two or more parties to it - the advantages must be equal or rather the advantages also must not be confined to one party without a quid pro quo from the other, more so as the parties must be willing to contract not forced - and there must be also capability to contract - laying down these as premises - and the time ones - let us see what are the conclusions de- ducible from them. Were there not at the passage of the act of 1779 - 10th Hen - Stat. at large p. 25 - two parties to that offer and acceptance? the state of re- offering those officers in her service at that time and those that might enter afterwards a specific

consideration for a specific service? none will deny this interrogatory. Was not this specific service rendered for a specific consideration? To this ques- tion the same response is given. But the ques- tion is asked - was not a proviso annexed to the consideration offered under the act of 1779? Yes, the proviso - that all who were in the service at the time & who served to the end of the war, and those who should become supernumerary & being afterwards called upon, did enter the service & serve to the end of the war, should be entitled to half pay for life, and a subsequent act - 14 substituted five years full pay with in- terest from the period in lieu thereof. But the events of affairs of this state in the cases referred to have disregarded the proviso - and allowed super- numeraries never reentering the service the ben- efit of half pay; thereby virtually annulling that pro- viso and placing them upon the full footing of those who served to 22 d April 1783 - concluding I con- cede - although not admitting it in language - that the termination of the war was when active hostil- ities ceased - the 19 th of Oct. 1781 - But was it intended by the act of 1779 - that all the advantages of the contract should be enjoyed by the state? none will concede this proviso - because it would be giving all the benefits to one of the contracting parties, the other divesting it of all the con- stituent parts of a contract, to wit the reciprocity - mutuality

defence are of the contracting parties of all the rights necessary to constitute a contract - for the of- ficers services were voluntary - not coerced - the love of country combined with the promise of re- ward - There was also a reliance upon the part of the state to make the offer she did - & whilst the force of circumstances induced her to make the offer to officers entering & continuing in service - it was not forced upon her by the officers then & even had by the nation with us now she was at all events if the Kingdom of Great Britain had been in- duced to withdraw her fleets from our shores and armies from our states with a promise of reward, this objection to paying the demand might with legal effect be urged - but when her officers actuated by the same love of country & desire of repelling a foreign foe accept a gratuitous offer made by a liberal state for liberal ser- vices, the force of circumstances cannot be pleaded as a bar to payment of their just demands. The state & her officers stood also upon the footing of individuals with capability to contract with each other and are surely held to as strict ac- countability. I base all the ground upon which I urge the payment of the commutation pay of five years full pay and interest in lieu of half pay in favour of John Hooper a divi- sionator now with the will annexed of John Sturdivant deceased. And trust that you will

conclusions upon this point will be the same to which I have arrived upon ex- amining this subject.
I am yours
most obedt. Servant
John S. Stubbs
attorney in fact, for
John Heafner, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of John Hood deceased.
J. G. Edwards, Esq., Commissioner of Pensions, Washington D. C.

James E. Heath, Esqr Commissioner of Pensions.
The petition of John Hooper administrator de bonis non of John Hudson deceased, re- spectfully represents that said John Hudson entered the service of the U.S. as a captain in the Virginia State line in the revolution- ary war and served until the day of 1781 when he became a supernume- rary. That among the divers acts of the legisla- ture of Virginia providing for the pay and emoluments of her officers and soldiers, which debts have been since assumed by the U.S. are the acts of 9 & 10th Hen. Stat. at large Chap 27th 3rd Section passed Oct 1780, providing for half pay, and the Act 8th Nov. 1781 declares that the pay, rations and arrears shall be made good from the 12th Jan. 1777 until the last day of Dec 1781 with 6 per cent payable in specie, by which the Auditor was directed to settle their accounts and give to each certificates of the amount due, and to give and the Treasurer with a statement of the sum due by which he should be govern- ed in settling said certificates when pre- sented. That a careful examination of the Acceptor books shows that all the said John Hudson received in his lifetime was the sum of $1636 by payments made prior to and in the year 1783. That his annual pay was $760.50 and the time of his actual service was five years making the aggregate of his pay $3802.50 with interest thereon making

the amount $4.848.25 - When he received by the Auditors acts $1638 leaving a balance due on that account of $3207.55 with in- terest from that time until 18.31 when the sum of $1964 was paid to said administra- tor by said and the Commonwealth for half pay during life - Which deducted from the amount $12444.13 then due left a ba- lance of $10480.13 with interest to this time making at the present time $23585.09; In addition to which was the clothing which is paid down at $200 per annum for five years with interest to this time will be about $5.260 - making the whole sum now claimed as due to said administration $28745.09. Which your petitioner respectfully brings to your notice - a claim which he believes somewhat novel but upon examination of the above authorities you will discover none pro- vided for by the acts of the general Assembly of Virginia. And for the official character in which he acts, and the proof of hereditary connection with the presentation of this claim he respectfully refers to the papers already on file in the application of Hud- son's administrator for five years com- mutation in lieu of half pay filed in 1848 or 1849 all of which is respect- fully submitted
John Harper