Sunday, February 25, 2024

The Dendys and The Fatal Accident

   ©  Kathy Duncan, 2024

This newspaper clipping, reprinted in The Troy Messenger of Troy, Alabama, on 9 March 1876, recounts a horrific accident that happened in Wood County, Texas. The six-year-old daughter of the Dendy family was crushed to death in a hack accident while the family was returning home from church. My Dendy great-great grandparents moved from near Troy, Alabama to Wood County, Texas, and lived there in the 1870s, but was this my family? My great-great-grandfather, James Hogan Dendy, had a brother who also moved from near Troy, Alabama to Wood County, Texas. I finally decided it was time to investigate.






















Since this article mentions J.R. Wright and the Alvis family as the other parties involved, I revisited the available records with these individuals in mind. On the 1870 census, J. H. Dendy and his family were living in precinct four of Wood County. Also, in precinct four was J.R. Wright. In 1870, James H Dendy's brother Lawson Dendy was still in Goshen Hill, Pike County, Alabama. 

The 1876 Wood County tax list places J. H. Dendy and Jno R. Write in precinct four. Lawson Dendy was not present on the 1876 list. By 1877, Lawson Dendy was in Wood County along with his brother James H. Dendy, but the Wood County records no longer divided tax records up by precinct, so it is impossible to know which precinct Lawson was in. In November of 1877, James Hogan Dendy and wife Lydia Ann Pugh sold their property in the Antonio Flores survey and moved to Bowie County, Texas. From Bowie County, it would have been impossible to visit very easily with family back in Wood County. That's surprising given that the 1880 census reveals that Lawson Dendy brought their mother Nancy (Williams) Dendy with him to Wood County and that Lydia's sister Hannah (Pugh) Hooks had moved to Wood County. Why did James and Lydia leave Wood County just as other family members were arriving - family they had not lived near in at least six years? 

On the 1880 Wood County, Texas census, J. R. Wright was still living in precinct four, there was an Alvis family in precinct four, and Lydia's sister Hannah Hooks was living in precinct four. Lawson Dendy and family with mother Ann Dendy were in precinct one. 

In comparing family group sheets for James Hogan Dendy and for Lawson Dendy, neither one had a daughter born around 1870 who died or disappeared abruptly. There is a gap in both families for a daughter who could have been born after the last months of 1870 but never appeared on the census.

The current road from Black Oak, Texas to Winnsboro, Texas seems to go near if not through the Antonio Flores survey, where the James H. Dendy family lived. The total distance between Black Oak and Winnsboro is ten miles.

In pondering this problem, I suddenly remembered the mystery photograph from my Dendy great-grandparents' album. 











This is an 1890s copy of three earlier tintypes. These pictures seem to have been taken on the same day since they seem to be sitting in the same chair. One of my cousins found a metal mourning button featuring this identical picture of the man in an old trunk that belonged to my great-grandparents. The question has been which set of great-great-grandparents this photograph portrayed - Dendy or Davis. The man does not resemble my great-great-grandfather, Davis, so he is ruled out. However, my great-great-grandmother Davis had a previous husband who died in the Civil War, and they had a daughter together. However, he died before their daughter reached this age. They could not have all posed in the same chair since he was deceased on the day these portraits were made. 

That puts the spotlight on the Dendys. James Hogan Dendy died in 1892, so a mourning pin made from his picture makes sense. The inclusion of the little girl has always been a question. The Dendys had a daughter born in December 1871. Why wouldn't this photograph have been passed along to her or her family if it was a picture of her? Why make a copy with just one child? Why not include the other children who surely had their pictures made, too? My great-grandfather was born before 1870. There were also other children living at the time these photos were made, why aren't they included in this copy? I now believe that Lydia Ann had this copy made, grouping her deceased husband, herself, and their deceased daughter together in one photo memorial. Or one of the Dendy children had it made for her as a gift. 

There is a picture of a youthful Lydia Ann (Pugh) Dendy that is much clearer than this one. In it, she is wearing a black bead necklace. The photograph of the woman in this group picture is of such a poor quality that it is difficult to positively identify her - although they both had dark hair, worn close to the head.

I'm confident that this is a photograph of the Dendys and their daughter as they appeared in 1874 to 1875. Unless a family Bible is found, the little girl will probably remain nameless. She would have been buried in Wood County, and so far I have not found a tombstone for her online. 

The combination of the newspaper clipping and the photograph shed some light on the mystery of why the Dendys sold out and left Wood County in 1877. Since the clipping recounts that they had been to a "preaching" that fateful day, they would have had to pass the spot in the road where their daughter died every time they went to church. If the church they attended was in the direction of Winnsboro, they would have passed that spot every time they went for supplies. Plus, it would have been the talk of the community for months. I think it must have become unbearable, so they sold out and left their families behind. 

No oral story of this event was passed down in my family. I think it was probably too painful for anyone to speak of. My great-grandfather would have been seven or eight when his little sister was killed, and he would have had a clear memory of this event. If it had happened to a cousin rather than a sister, I think the story would have been recounted. 


Monday, January 1, 2024

Welcoming 2024

  ©  Kathy Duncan, 2024





















Once again it is time to say goodbye to one year and hello to the next. 

Here is a look at 2023 in review. The year ended with 204,317 page views, which was an increase of 52,449. It would be amazing if those figures were accurate. However, they are not. This year foreign bots were trolling the internet and driving up the page view count. There are ways to filter those numbers out, but that is beyond my expertise.

This was not a very year productive in terms of writing new posts. I only managed to write and publish twenty-one. Of those posts, the three most viewed were as follows:

1. Daniel A. Lewis, Son of John D. Lewis. This post was a continuation of my Lewis family research. Daniel is one of the most controversial since family researchers are not in agreement over what happened to him after his first marriage. 

2. Squire Brown, Brother of Issac S Brown. This was one of my favorite posts. I was able to link Issac S. Brown to at least one other family member other than his own children. As a result, I was contacted by another Brown researcher who has a photo album containing photographs of the Brown family, including my husband's 3X great-grandmother, Catherine E. (Hay) Brown. 

3. Wiley Lewis, Son of John D. Lewis. This was another in a series of posts on the children of John D. Lewis. Wiley turned out to be one of the most interesting of the Lewis sons. He appears to have been a good person who lived large - probably a little too large for his father's approval.

My favorite posts for the year, in no particular order:

1. Mollie F. Brown's Photo Album was a favorite because identified photographs are so difficult to find. Plus, this experience gives me hope that more photographs and family bibles are out there waiting to be shared.

2. Joseph Rutherford Cawthron Returns on the Wheaton was a favorite because it added so much more information to what seems like a small event - a brother's body returned for burial in the U.S. 

3. The Bedside of M. P. Kelley was a favorite because newspapers continue to be one of the most valuable research tools available to us. This small clipping told me that my 2x great-grandfather, M. P. Kelley, had been sick for a few months before his death and that his family was traveling to visit him. 

Even though this has not been the most productive year in terms of publishing, it has been a very productive research year. I have been researching my cousins' ancestor who was a Mexican War veteran. At first, there was not much information about him, and it seemed like not much more could be learned about him. Then the floodgates opened. And I do mean a flood of information. He has turned into the most interesting individual I have ever researched. He is teaching me more about research strategies. Right now, I am organizing and refining the information that I have and plan to write about him in the new year. 


Saturday, October 28, 2023

Joseph Rutherford Cawthron Returns on the Wheaton

 ©  Kathy Duncan, 2023

Recently, a news report reminded me that a former president of the U.S. canceled a trip to the Aisne-Marne American cemetery near Paris in 2018. At the time, he blamed it on the rain. Later it was revealed that was just a convenient excuse, "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." Later in the same trip, he referred to the 1,800 marines who died at Belleau Wood as "suckers" for being killed in battle. The importance of that presidential trip was that it was intended to honor the sacrifice of American soldiers, and it was also intended to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. 

As stunningly callous and disrespectful as those comments were, they set me thinking about my grandfather's first cousin who died in France during WWI and who was buried there for a short time. Then in 1921, his body was shipped to Sacramento, California, and reinterred there. I started wondering about the circumstances of that reinterment. 

Joseph Rutherford Cawthorn, born in 1893, was the son of Willie Porter Cawthon and his wife Maggie Skelton. Joseph and his four siblings were orphaned in 1904. The siblings seem to have been farmed out to different maternal family members, perhaps neighbors, and at least one orphanage. All of them used the Cawthorn spelling rather than the family's spelling of Cawthon. I'm not sure why that happened except perhaps the name was pronounced with an "r" sound, and the Skeltons thought that was how it should be spelled. 

Joseph's World War I registration card listed his sister Lillian Inez Cawthorn as the person to be notified in the event of his death. Lillie, at age fourteen, was a minor living in Hunt County, Texas.


















Joseph, a mail clerk, died of pneumonia on 14 October 1918 and was interred in France.

Almost three years later, his body was shipped to Sacramento, California to be reinterred in East Lawn Cemetery. For several years, I've had a copy of his burial notice that appeared in the Sacramento Bee on 17 June 1921.















Mrs. S. Mancuso, listed as Joseph's "only close surviving relative," was his little sister, Lillian Inez Cawthorn. 

The former president's words sent me delving back into the circumstances of Joseph's reinterment in Sacramento. I was certain that Lillian did not have the funds to have his body exhumed in France and shipped to Sacramento.

I began by revisiting Joseph's Findagrave memorial. There still was not a photograph of his tombstone. The notation on his memorial said that the exact location of his plot was unknown. I did not make a photo request at that time because the cemetery is too large for any photo volunteer to search it randomly. My next step was to find out if I could determine the location of his grave. For that, I googled the cemetery and located a database for the cemetery's burials. A search for Joseph Cawthorn gave me the section number, row number, and plot number for his grave. I returned to Findagrave and entered that information as a suggested edit. Within a short period of time, Joseph's memorial was updated. Then I made my photo request, which, to my surprise, was fulfilled in just a couple of days. Joseph's grave is unmarked, as I feared, but the Findagrave volunteer kindly laid a bouquet on his grave and photographed that.

My next step was to try to figure out where in France Joseph had been originally buried. I performed a very basic Google search for something like - France cemetery WWI US soldiers. That turned up various items that were published for and following the 100-year anniversary of the end of WWI. One especially informative article written by Michael E. Ruane for the Washington Post was about the process by which bodies were returned to relatives in the U.S. Beginning in 1919, the U.S. government sent out 74,000 questionnaire postcards that asked relatives where they wanted their soldier's final resting place to be - in France or in the U.S. By January 1920, the U.S. had received 63,000 responses. Between 1919 and 1922, about 44,000 U.S. soldiers were returned to the U.S. for burial. Families could choose between a military cemetery or a civilian cemetery. 

So far, I have not been able to locate the postcard that Lillian filled out and returned, but after continuing to Google for information, I found the National Archives database with records for the 44,000 soldiers whose bodies were turned. Among them, I found Joseph's information.


























The ship, the Wheaton, immediately caught my attention. I was sure I'd seen it mentioned in several articles that I had skimmed. Well, duh.

Joseph R. Cawthorn's body had traveled on the Wheaton in the largest shipment of U.S. soldiers' remains to be repatriated to the U.S. The Wheaton landed in Hoboken, New Jersey, on 18 May 1921 with 5,000 deceased soldiers. Five separate funeral services were held at the pier as the caskets were unloaded. President Warren Harding presided over one of the services on May 23, where he laid a wreath and gave a brief speech honoring the men who had given their lives for their country. 

According to the information on Joseph's card, his body had been sent to Antwerp before being loaded onto the Wheaton. The National Archives has a photograph of the group of soldiers' caskets that were loaded at Antwerp; each casket draped with a U.S. flag.

The U.S. WWII Research and Writing Center has an article by Jennifer Holik on "WWI Army Transport Ships," which relates the return of the repatriated remains of soldiers. Her own great-granduncle returned on the Wheaton along with Joseph R. Cawthorn. All of the deceased on the transport ships were listed as passengers - not as cargo. In death, they were afforded a full measure of respect.

My next step was to search newspaper databases to find more information about the Wheaton. I found a wealth of information in an article published by the Galveston Tribune in the Portal to Texas database. On 7 February 1921, the Tribune reprinted an article that originally appeared in the San Antonio Express. It consisted of an interview conducted with Capt. Robert E. Shannon of the U.S. Army who was assigned to the Graves Registration Service and who had been visiting his sister in San Antonio. 

Shannon related that once a soldier's remains were identified by a metal disk that he was wearing at the time of death and removed from the military cemetery in Europe, they were placed in a hermetically sealed metal container. The metal container was then enclosed in a burial casket, which was then placed in a wooden shipping case. The recommendation was for the metal container to remain unopened before the funeral, which was usually arranged by the American Legion. Each casket was draped in an American flag. All of the expenses involved in shipping the remains to its final destination were paid by the U.S. government. Funeral expenses of up to $100 were also paid for by the government. Most of the bodies were transported on the Wheaton. The ship would leave Hoboken carrying emptying caskets to Europe. When it returned to Hoboken with the deceased soldiers, two piers were dedicated to the Wheaton's mission. While in Hoboken, the caskets were guarded until the day they were shipped to one of several distribution centers. Lists were made of the soldiers and their destinations. Then twenty to twenty-five were loaded onto special express cars or baggage cars and were escorted by enlisted Army personnel to a local central distribution point. From there, the deceased soldiers traveled with an individual escort who remained with them until they were delivered to their families. 

Looking back at Joseph's card, there are several pieces of information to unpack. He was buried in grave 430 in the American Cemetery at Toul M-et-M, which turned out to be a temporary cemetery at Toul, Meurthe-et-Moselle. He was in group 91. It's difficult to pinpoint that exactly since there were groups 91A, 91B, and 91C. His sister Lillian's name appears as Lillian Inez Rouse. At the time she was the foster daughter of a Rouse family. Her guardian was a Mrs. Young. I don't know who she was. By the time Joseph was transported to Sacramento, Lillian had married Samuel Mancuso and was living at 4748 Ninth Ave. in Sacramento. 











Friday, October 20, 2023

The Bedside of M. P. Kelley

     ©  Kathy Duncan, 2023

Remember that materials are constantly being added to databases, especially newspaper databases. Periodically, repeat a search that has been done before. For the best results, vary keywords and spellings. Never, never assume that you've already found everything a database has to offer.

I've long been aware of this obituary for my great-great grandfather, Mansel Pinkney Kelley. A copy of it was in his widow's Civil War pension file. Although he had lived in Oklahoma for a few years prior to his death, his obituary was published in Camden, South Carolina, where he was raised and lived well into adulthood. In fact, he enlisted in the army from Kershaw County, South Carolina during the Civil War.











Repeated searches for a similar obituary in Oklahoma newspapers have garnered zero results. However, my search this week, using the Gateway to Oklahoma database, yielded a social notice, that indicated Pink Kelley had been seriously ill for months before his death on 19 June 1912 in Tupelo, Oklahoma. Son, Richard Singleton Kelley, had traveled from the Mt. Pleasant, Texas, area to visit his father. Although M. P. Kelley was able to sit up, he obviously did not fully recover. He was 68 years old at the time of his death. 




Sunday, September 24, 2023

Dating Photographs through Social Media - William S. and Mary C. (Cawthon) Chapman

    ©  Kathy Duncan, 2023

One strategy for determining the date of old photographs is to join a photograph dating group on Facebook. Be warned that many will make authoritative pronouncements whether they really know and even if their conclusions are illogical. Once someone offers a date, be sure to ask what it is about the photograph that helped them determine a date; otherwise, you haven't learned much.

I was hoping to receive specific information that might help narrow the date on this photograph of my great-grandparents, and I mean really narrow it down, which is always too much to hope for. The few answers I received spread possible dates over three decades. However, I think that turned out to be very helpful because I think that if I combine what I already knew about the photograph with the answers that I received, it adds an interesting new layer to the story.

William Sargent and Mary Charlotte (Cawthon) Chapman


































What I knew: The photograph was taken in Titus County, Texas by an itinerant photographer. On the day he arrived on the scene, my great-grandfather was excited to have an opportunity to have their picture taken. He ran to the creek where my great-grandmother was washing clothes and rushed her back to the house. I assume that the photographer was setting up his equipment while my great-grandparents were rushing to change their clothes. My great-grandmother, however, was mad because she did not have time to fix her hair. I think her anger shows in the picture. She must have told this story to my grandfather repeatedly and with maybe a little regret because this was the only photograph ever taken of my great-grandparents together.

They married on Christmas Eve, 1889. She was ten years his senior – she was 32 and he was 22. They were married for a very short time because he was killed in a hunting accident in September of 1893. Their first child was born in late November of 1890, and my grandfather was born in late December 1892. I would think that if the children had been born when this photograph was taken, one or both of them would be in the photograph, too.

The responses I received in a Facebook group dated my great-grandfather’s lapels and pants to the 1880s and his collar to the 1890s. That makes sense and fits within the timeframe of their marriage.

Another response that I received dated my great-grandmother's dress firmly in the 1870s. The poster refused to accept that the photograph could have been taken at a later date while also admitting that his clothes were from a later period. Logically, dating photographs should work in that direction: later styles do not appear in earlier photographs because that's not how time works. Another member seconded the 1870 date for the dress because it was plaid. Several members of that group also insist that women were always fashion-forward regardless of their economic status or age so that no woman would appear in a style that was over ten years old. In fact, their logic is that all women's styles are within a couple of years of a photograph being taken. That's a broad and sweeping statement that is full of pitfalls.

At first blush, it makes little sense that my great-grandmother's dress in a c. 1890 photograph would be from the 1870s. But then maybe, again, it makes perfect sense. In the late 1870s, my great-grandmother would have been in the 19 to 22-year-old range. She was one of two daughters that her father had with his first wife. When the first wife died, he married her younger sister. Together they had a house full of children. My great-grandmother’s beloved stepmother/aunt must have died between 1878 and 1800 because her youngest child was two in 1880. In 1880, my great-grandmother’s father died, leaving her and her sister to raise their younger siblings. The sister married, had three babies who died, and then died herself in 1886. Times might have been easier while the sister was married, but overall things were very bad for this family from 1880 on. My great-grandmother struggled to raise her younger siblings by taking in laundry and by relying on the kindness of her neighbors. As a result, my great-grandmother did not marry until her younger siblings were all almost raised. When she married, she married her sister’s brother-in-law. In other words, my great-grandfather was the brother of my great-grandmother's sister’s husband.

So that problematic dress: I would think that if it had been my great-grandmother’s dress from the late 1870s, it would have been worn out by 1890ish. However, when her stepmother/aunt died, her clothes might have been stored in a chest and left untouched. It’s reasonable to think that there might have been a dress that accommodated her last pregnancy. It’s also possible that the same thing happened when my great-grandmother's sister died in 1886, but for some reason, I think it is less likely to be her sister’s dress. I think her clothes would have been well worn, too, and post-1880.

At this point, I think that on the day this picture was taken, my great-grandmother’s only option for a presentable dress might have been one that belonged to her stepmother and that had been stored in a chest. I also think it is possible that she might have been in the early stages of her first pregnancy although no one in the Facebook jumped to the conclusion that she was pregnant. The waist on the dress seems oddly high. I’m wondering if she had pulled it up and then spread the skirt out to conceal her little baby bump.

My best guess is that the photograph could be narrowed to the late spring or early summer of 1890.





Family Search's Experimental Search Tool - Benajah and Hannah Brown

   ©  Kathy Duncan, 2023

In the later part of July, researchers on Facebook started sharing a link to Family Search's United States Wills and Deeds Experiment Search tool. Family Search's experimental prototypetext tool came with the warning that they made no guarantees regarding the availability of the tool. I think we all took that as a warning that it would be short-lived.  

While it lasted, it was phenomenal, and I am looking forward to it being re-released in its "final" form. The beauty of the search tool was that it ran an every-name search so that it went well beyond the principal parties in a record. It found records that were in unindexed county record books. Most importantly, it shortened the length of time required to wade through records county by county. 

My ancestor, Nathaniel Holcomb's wife, serves as a prime example. Up until now, I could only theorize that her name was probably Hannah. I knew that whatever her name was, she had married Benajah Brown of Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri as her second husband after Nathaniel Holcomb died - which was by 1814.

My previous research indicated that the woman, who was Benajah Brown's wife and Nathaniel Holcomb's widow, was old enough to be the mother of all of Nathaniel Holcomb's children, but I don't know that for a fact.

The experimental search tool pulled up a deed in Ste. Genevieve County from Benajah and Hannah Brown to James Skaggs, the husband of Nathaniel Holcomb's daughter Hannah Holcomb. Hannah Brown is named in the deed and released her dower rights before Robert Jameson, the husband of Nathaniel Holcomb's eldest daughter Esther. This indicates that Hannah was still alive as of 1834 and that she could not write her own name. Of most interest is that it provides the location of their land: the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of sec 29 Twp 39 N Range 7E. 

Click to Enlarge


















The next deed record that the experiment search tool located was from Benejah Brown of Newton County, Missouri to John C. Brickey of Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri in 1843. Hannah Brown was not included, which is an indication that she was deceased by 1843. This deed confirmed my theory that Benajah Brown was the elderly man living with his son James Brown in Newton County, Missouri in 1840. This land was located at SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec 29, Twp 39N, Range 7E in Ste Genevieve County.

Click to Enlarge



















This 1930 Plat Map Book of Ste. Genevieve provides the location Sec 29 Twp 39N Range 7E:

























Benajah Brown's land was roughly here:









Sunday, September 10, 2023

Mary (Kelly) Fair, Daughter of John Kelly Sr. - Update

  ©  Kathy Duncan, 2023

This post has been decades in the making. Most of the other researchers who were interested in Mary (Kelly) Fair are deceased now.

While on a brain break from working on my husband's Brown family, I decided to have another go at one of my ancestor's sisters - Mary (Kelly) Fair. I've seen a lot of new researchers ask what they should do when they have run out of steam while researching an ancestor or family line. I always work on something else that I have not touched for a long time. It's a good use of my time and beats frustrating myself with material that I can't find anything "new" in - or I just need a break from something tedious that I'm working on. Usually, new information for an old problem has become available, and I can make progress. In this case, the Hinds County, Mississippi estate files for Mary (Kelly) Fair and her husband William Fair were available on Family Search. I've attached those files to both of them as sources on Family Search. Here are the highlights from Mary's file.

Mary Fair, wife of William Fair, appears in the estate records of John Kelly Sr. of Fairfield County, South Carolina, as one of his children. She was to receive three slaves from the estate: Nelly, Tom, and Serena. A Fairfield District, South Carolina, equity court document stated that Mary and William Fair resided in Mississippi as early as 1843. Tracking them from there has been difficult. A William Fair lived in Hinds County, Mississippi in the same timeframe that other children of John Kelley Sr. lived there, but it has been impossible to know for sure if it was the same William Fair. In 1850, neither Mary nor William Fair appeared on the census. Their children, if they had any, were unidentified.

As it turns out, both Mary and William Fair were deceased by 1850. Mary died first in 1846, and there is an estate record for her in Hinds County because she owned four slaves in her own right. Therefore, William Fair, filed to administer her estate. This document provides her death date, the names of the four slaves, and the names of her heirs:




































According to the document, created on 24 January 1848, the Fairs were residents of Hinds County, where Mary died on 17 April 1846. At the time of her death, she owned four slaves: Jesse, his wife Lina, and their children Caroline and Ben. Note that these are not the slaves that Mary Fair was to receive from her father's estate. Her brother Littleton Kelly inherited a slave named Jesse. It's possible that they traded slaves. It is also possible that rather than transporting three slaves from South Carolina to Mississippi they were sold in South Carolina and the money was used to buy slaves in Mississippi. In that event, the slaves purchased with that money would still be considered Mary's property. 

The document names Mary Fair's legal heirs: Sarah Harris, John Farr, Isaac Milton Farr, Frances Hutson, Mary Taylor, Mariah Floyd, Jane Farr, William H Farr, and Eliza Mitchell. The last three are noted as being minors. Farr is a frequent alternate spelling for Fair. 

Additionally, the document states that the William Fair who is filing to administer the estate was Mary's husband. The document also requests that Littleton Kelly, Mary's brother, be named as one of the appraisers.

The estate record indicates that at the time of her death, Mary (Kelly) Fair was old enough to be the mother of four married daughters: Sarah Harris, Frances Hutson, Mary Taylor, and Mariah Floyd. Eliza Mitchell is a bit of a puzzle. Is Mitchell her middle name or a surname? Would a married daughter also be considered a minor??

In other documents in William Fair's estate records, Isaac M. Fair is called Isaac Middleton Fair, which seem like a more likely name for him, given that Mary had a brother named Middleton Kelly.

By 1851, William Fair was also deceased and Mary Fair's estate was being administered by Francis Stubbs.





















This document states that Stubbs had been administering the estate since October of 1849. In another document that Stubbs filed when seeking to administer the estate, he stated that William Fair died in April 1849. This document names heirs and their whereabouts as of October 1851: Isaac M. Fair and William H. Fair who reside in the state of Lousiana; and Mariah Floyd, wife of Thomas H. Floyd, who reside in the state of Arkansas; also Eliza Tyler, wife of Joseph A. Tyler who reside in the state of Texas; and the following persons who reside in the state of Mississippi, to wit: Elizabeth J. Seastrunk, wife of Joseph Seastrunk, of Copiah County; Sarah C. Harris, wife of James Harris, of Claiborne County; John J Fair of Rankin County, and Mary Taylor wife of William Taylor, and Harriett Hutson wife of Jefferson M. Hutson deceased - each reside in Hinds County. All of them were of full age except for William H. Fair, who was under the age of 21. 

Note the addition of John J. Fair to the list of heirs. Jane Fair seems to be the same person as Elizabeth J. Seastrunk. Is Eliza Tyler also the same person as Elizabeth Mitchell [Fair]?

In other documents, there are dealings with Obediah K. Kelly and F. J. Kelly - two of Mary Fair's brothers.

This is a wealth of information about Mary Fair's children, who her daughters married, and where they lived as of 1851. However, tracking them has not proven to be that easy. Only about half of them can be found on the 1850 census at this point. Even fewer can be found on the 1860 census. Even fewer of their children can be tracked forward.

Next, I need to go through the key documents in William Fair's estate records.