Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-07-19

NN OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES il court of Quarter
FL ly Session, continued and held for Louisa county at
thu courthouse thereof, the 18th day Of june lc}b:
Cicvars Baker, Pa'nlli1,
against
Hardin Duke, Thomas Swift, jr., Thomas Swift and
Harriet, his wife; Thonas Swift and Peggy, his wile
Hugh NJ Peltus, Gabriel Pondrxer and Mary his wife,
the heirs or drvsees of James Duke, deceased William
Baker, Mary Brl,on, Lucy Elicit John Nj. Moody and
Catarine HIS wife; George Baker, Frederick jude ana
Eliza, his wife; Henry Richards and Amanda, his w'i'
Drury Fox and Evena, his wife, Maria Baker widow
Of Martin Baker, dec d; John NJ, Benjamin F., Marion,
Clemrnna, Martin and Anne Maria Baker children of
said Martin Baker, decd; John 6 Duke, Anne Duke,
Betsy Duke, Mary Duke, Patsey Duke Burnley Duke
CHARLES Archibald Thomas, William ana John Swift,
sons of CIeviars; Thomas kceran and Mary, his wife,
Elisha jackson and Sally, his wife; Nnrod r. Chisholm
aud Nancy, his wife, Cornelius Chisholm und Betty, his
wife, and Maria Baker, in her own right as daughter
OF Clryars Swift dec d; Edmund, John David aud Mary
Swift children of Rebecca Swift, Decd John G. law
kins and Rebecca, his wife; james johnson and Nancy
his wife; Tarton Chiles and Amy, his Wife - fia'l
and Amy his wife; - Hall md Elizabeth, his wife,
= Hail and Louisa Li, wife; and Harvey Baker,
such of them us b. rlng, by their own proper Names
,opeher with :'sne unknown grand children OF ClcvarS
Oak. elder dec u, to whom lie devised his land
Lille river in Louisa county, after the death of his wi
dow; and the unknown descendants, aleneeS, dcvl
sees of the said grand Children Defendants:
On the motion Of the plaintiff, and by consent Of the
defendants who have answered, leave him TO tile
his amended and supplemental BILL which is filed accord
ingly with its exhibits; and then, the motion {" the
plaintiff, John Hunter Is appointed guardlun ad em
the infant defendants who are known and named III
tie amended bill, who filed their answer thereto most
of the adult, known home defendants, viz: Thomas
Swift IT, and others also filed their Joint and several
answers 10 both Of which answers, the plaintiff replies
generally: Whereupon. this came on to be heard
by consent upon the gna bill and other papers former
y read the supplemented and amended BILL with lis rX
btS the said answers, and the epcalons thereto, aud
was argued by counsel: Upon consideration whereof 1t
appearing the satisfaction Of the court that the de-
ftndants Thomas Swift and Peggy, his wife; Hugh NJ.
Prt,us Gabriel PonIrXIcr and Mary, his wife; Arci
bald Swift Cornelius Chisholm and Betsy his VILE and
john Swift besides others Of the defendants unknown,
are not inhabitants Of this State that others OF The De.
PENDANTS whose nan,S and residence also unknown,
NAV perhaps not br residents Of the State: u is ordered.
that the SAID resident aud unknown defendants np
pear here n, the September of this Court: and
shew f any they CAM why the relief should not
be granted prayed by the plaintiff supplemental and
amended b that is TO say, why tract OF 100 acres OF
land Little river, in this county, devised by CeviarS
Duke 10 his widow Mary, afterwards Mary E@giisnn
for life the remainder 10 nineteen OF his grand Children
should not be sold in order TO division, and the neil
proceeds thereof distributed among the said grand chill
dren their heirs de assigns, according to their
respective rights And it is further ordered. that copy
of this order be for months successfully inserted IN
the Richmond Enquirer, and another copy be posted for
the same period, at the door OF this court-house.
cooy-Tese JOHN HUNTER, {. H. {.
Iur 10 2l-wSw-