Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-08-23

the courthouse theeoi, on inc lith Gay n June, l2ou:
Ceviars Baker, Plaintiff,
against
Hardin Duke, Thomas Swift jr, Thomas Swift and
Harriet, bis wife: Thonas Swift and Peggy, his wife;
Iugh NJ. Petlus Gabriel PoindeXtcr and Mary his wife
the heirs deviSecs of James Duke, deceased; William
Baker, Mary Britton Lucy Elicit john NJ. hloody and
CatIiarnc, his wifi: George Baker Frederick Jude and
Eliza, his wife; Henry Richards and Amanda, his wife:
Drury Fox and Eyrlna, his wife; Maria Baker, widow
of Martin Baker, dec d.; John NJ, Benjamin F., Marion.
Clemcntna, Martin and Anne Maria Baker, children of
said Martin Baker decd; John Duke, Anne Duke,
Betsy Duke. Mary Duke, Patsey Duke, Burnley Duke"
Charles Archibald, Thomas William and John Swift
Of Cleviars; Thomas kecran and Mary, his wife,
Elisha Jackson and Sally; his wife: Nmrod r. Chisholm
and Nancy. his Wife Cornelius Chisholm and Betty, his
wife, and Maria Baker, in her right, Il daughter
ofC!erars Swift d; Edmund, John, David and Mary
Swi!,, children of Rebecca Swift, decd; John G.. IIaw-
kns and Rebecca, his. wife; James Johnson and Nancy
his wife; TaIilon Chi!cs and Amy, his wife; 49, Hall
and Amy his wife; - Hall and Elizabeth his wife;
- Hall and Louisa, his wife; and Harvey Baker, or
such of them as be living, by their proper names,
together with ''the unknown grand children of Clevars
Duke, the elder decd whom he devised his land
Little river, in Louisa county, after the death Of his wi
dow; and the unknown descendants, alienees devil
sees of The said grand chiIden,' Defendants:
On the motion Of the plaintiff, and by consent Of the
defendants who have answered leave given him 10 file
his amended and supplemental bill, which is filed accord
ingIy with lis exhibits and then, the motion Of the
plaintiff, John Hunter is appointed guardian nd litem
TO the nfa nj defendants who known and named in
the amended bil who filed their answer thereto: most
of the adult, known home defendants, viz Thomas
Swift jr, and others, also filed their Joint and several
answers; to both Of which answers the plaintiff replies
generally: Whereupon. this on he heard
by CONSENT upon the original bill and other papers former
ly read the supplemental and amended BILL with its ey
hbits the said answers, and the rrplcations thereto and
was argued by counsel: Upon consideration whereof, it
appearing TO the satisfaction Of the court that the de-
fendants Thomas Swift and Peggy, his wife; Hugh NJ.
Pettas, Gabriel Pondcxter and Mary his wife; Arch
bald Swift: Cornelius Chisholm and Betsy his wife, and
John Swift, besides others of the defendants unknown
not inhabitants Of this State, that others of the de-
PENDANTS whose and residence are also unknown
may perhaps not be residents Of the State II ordered
that the said resident and unknown defendants ap
pear here at the next September term of this Court and
slew Gf any they CAM why the relief should not
be granted prayed by the plaintiffs supplemental and
amended BILL that is to say, why tract Of $50 acres of
land on Little river in this county, devised by Clcvars
Duke 10 his widow, Mary: afterwards Mary EggIiston
for life: the remainder to nineteen Of his grand children
should not be sold, in order 10 division and The nett
proceeds thereof distributed among the said grand chill
dren their heirs dersces assigns according to their
respective rights And it is further ordered That copy
OF this order he for two months successfully inserted in
the Richmond Enquirer and another copy be posted for
the same period, at the door Of this court house
coPy-Testc, JOHN HUNTER, {. C.
July ~ .2l-wSw-