Individual Details
John Axton
(Abt 1620 - )
Notes imported from GEDCOM:
II have received a great deal of information on the Axton-Whitecottonfamilies of Stafford Co., VA from Rosalie Nadler and from MichelleTaunton. I have attempted here to piece together the data provided andunravel the story underneath it all.
John Axton is described as a plantation owner at a place called "TheNeck". The was a strip of land in eastern Virginia along theinter-coastal waterway. "The Neck" was the term used to describe thisland in the early 1600s, and it was located in old James City Co.,Virginia.
John Axton was claimed as a headright in a land patent issued to one Maj.Lewis Burwell in 1648. Prior to the formation of Stafford County hesettled on the southside of Potomac Creek, near the small branch known asBeaver Dam Creek (but was called Axton's Creek in colonial times or byits Indian name of Weepsiwasson Creek).
Whether this is the same area called "The Neck" is unknown as yet. Wecan deduce, though, that John Axton's arrival in America occurredsometime prior to 1648 when is mentioned in the patent for Maj. Burwell.
On October 30, 1662, this land is mentioned in Westmoreland County, Va.records when it reads: "Mr. Henry Blagrave and Mary his wife appearedbefore the Governor and Council on 25 September last past andacknowledged the sale of 600 acres to Edward Cary and John Axton." Thisland was first purchased in 1660, so this entry would be to attest to thefinal payment and transfer of the deed.
This land on Potomac Creek would be mentioned numerous times in the courtrecords for Stafford, as we can see in the notes for Ann Axton and MealyWhitecotton. The first time it is mentioned in reference to John Axtonis in 1668 in the court records. "Cavaliers and Pioneers", vol. 21666-1695, by Nell Marion Nugent (p45) contains the following which is atranscription of old court records:
"John Axoll (Axton), 600 acres, Stafford Co., south side of PotomackCreek, 23 Sept. 1668, p. 174. On westward side of Weepsiwasson Creekadjoining Mr. Henry Meese, Mr. Wm. Horton, Mr. Wllm. Haberd, &c. Grantedunto Capt. David Mansfield [also known as David Mansell], who assigned &made over in marriage unto Mr. Henry Blagrave and Mary his wife, daughterof said David, who sold to Edward Carey, decd., and Axton, and now duesaid Axton by survivorship."
What this means is that David Mansfield received a grant of 600acres, which then passed to his daughter Mary and her husband HenryBlagrave. John Axton with Edward Carey purchased the land from Blagraveand his wife. Edward Carey died, so the property passed to John Axton asthe surviving partner.
This entry is also important for another reason. Many researchershave claimed that John Axton was married to Mary Mansell (Mansfield),daughter of Capt. David Mansell. This record would seemingly end thatspeculation. Mary Mansell is obviously married to Henry Blagrave, whichwould make it extremely unlikely she gave birth to Ann Axton two yearsearlier.
This 600-acre property appears many times in the records of earlyStafford Co., much of it occurring after John Axton's death andconcerning his daughter (Ann Axton) and grandson (Mealy Whitecotton).But to follow the story was best as I can discern it I have included mostof those records here as follows. To set the stage, John Axton owns this600 acres, but sometime in the ensuing two decades he dies and the landpasses to his son, John Axton, Jr. But John, Jr. dies as well, makinghis young sister, Ann, the heir to the family's possessions.
It is at this point a flurry activity surrounds this land according toStafford Co. court records. In the interest of brevity, I paraphrasethese entries here, but can provide the full text for those you wish.This is how events seem to have proceeded�
OCTOBER 11, 1686:
Henry Blagrave II (son of Henry Blagrave and Mary Mansell) appears incourt to he is selling 600 acres first granted to his late grandfatherCapt. David Mansfield back on Oct. 6, 1654. The purchaser is one JohnGowry and he buying the land in exchange for "valuable consideration".Henry Glagrave II and his wife Sarah then sign the land over to Gowry.
We know though that the land doesn't belong to Henry. His fathersold it to Cary and Axton in in the 1660s and it passed soley to Axton in1668. How can he sell land he doesn't own? I believe Henry is trying topull a scam. John Axton has died and, as we shall see, his heir and sonJohn Axton, Jr. has died as well. This leaves Ann Axton as heir to herbrother and father. Ann though an underage widowed mother of an infantson. She is either a single mother or newly remarried, and perhapsBlagrave thinks he can pull one over on her.
Also, what is "valuable consideration"? Most sales state a specificprice, so what is Gowry giving Blagrave? "Valuable consideration" couldbe money, barter, a favor of some sort - most anything.
OCTOBER 13, 1686:
Mary (Mansell) Blagrave appears in court to sign over her right to landand attest to the sale to Gowry.
This is odd, and may indicate some level of complicity on Mary'spart. She was, after all, a party to the original sale of the land toCary & Axton. And she would appear to be the only party in that sale whois still alive. If anyone knows the truth, it would be her. Yet sheagrees to sell the land anyway.
DECEMBER 9, 1686:
Henry and Sarah Blagrave appear in court with their attorney, JosephWaugh. No action is taken in court this day, all that happens is theBlagrave are here to name Waugh as their representative for their rightto the 600 acres they sold to Gowry.
Why would the Blagraves need an attorney? Their sale to Gowry hasbeen finalized, and one rarely needed a lawyer in a simple landtransfer. It would seem logical that Waugh was brought in becausesomeone is now contesting Blagrave's right to sell the property. This aswe will learn is John Smith, who sometime recently has married the youngAnn Axton.
MARCH 10, 1687:
William Horton (mentioned as owning the adjacent property in the earlierrecords) appears in court to testify he was in the home of William Newellin July or August of 1660 at Middle Plantation when Edward Cary and JohnAxton first purchased this land (specified as 600 acres on the south ofPotomack Creeke) from Henry Blagrave for a final total of 1509 pounds oftobacco. And that Blagrave and his wife Mary appeared in court thefollowing winter to attest to sale. Horton also adds "yor Dept.[deponent, presumably Gowry] knows that ye said Cary & Axton pd ye saidTobo and further saith not", in other words "your clients is lying andknows it".
This entry establishes the date of the sale to Cary and Axton as thesummer of 1660. We can also begin to discern more about the strategy ofthe Blagrave-Gowry side. Horton is saying, "You know he paid thetobacco." This would only be important if someone now claims Axton hadnot paid (or not fully paid it), and therefore he never really owned theland. And if he never owned it, Henry II is free to sell it again.
Who is Horton talking to and about when he says "yor Dept."? Thedeponent must be Gowry who is mentioned on all the later records, but whois representing him. It must be Joseph Waugh who Blagrave has brought into speak for his interests.
JUNE 8, 1687:
Robert Brent appears to gives details of his survey of the 600 acres"pattented by Capt. David Mansfield since purchased by Jno. Axton". Thisincludes a long description of the property that tells of dividing linesrunning from this tree along a fence row to that tree, etc., etc. Themain point is that the surveyor (for John Gowry) has divided the propertyinto three equal 200-acre sections, and that Gowry has chosen the"westerly" 200 acres for his own. The survey also states that theproperty is "uncleared". And further, that the 200 acres Gowry haschosen is to be divided in thirds again, with Gowry getting 2/3 of thatland where he "now lives" and the other 1/3 goes to one Jacob Hubbard.
So the land is uncleared. This would seem to indicate that JohnAxton never farmed the land. If the land sat unused for 27 years, thatmight explain why Blagrave thought he could resell it. Perhaps hethought no one would notice. And if Gowry is already residing on theland, then the Axton family must have resided elsewhere. Still thequestion would arise, what about the 400 acres that Gowry didn't chose?Who gets that? And why does Gowry get to chose in the first place? Thebeginning of the record says that the land in question was first"patented by Capt. David Mansfield since purchased by Jno. Axton". Sothe court is acknowledging, even while dividing the land, that John Axtondid own it.
JUNE 9, 1687:
A woman name Christian Waddington appears in court. Much of the originalrecord has waded, making it illegible. Still the portion that can beread is clear in its intent. She basically stating that she was therewhen Cary & Axton grew 1500 pounds of tobacco on her husband's plantationwhich they then paid to Blagrave for the 600 acres granted to DavidMansfield.
Again here someone is testifying to about the tobacco,strengthening, I believe, my contention that Gowry and/or Henry BlagraveII now claim otherwise.
JUNE 9, 1687:
The court entry immediately following Waddington's testimony has JohnSmith appearing in court "for & on behalfe of Ann my wife an Infant underye age of twenty & one yeares Daugtr. of Jno. Axton late of StaffordCounty agts. [against] John Gowry & Rachell his wife Defts.[defendants]". On this day John Smith deposed one Gerrard Lowther.Lowther testifies that on a journey to Jamestown with Mr. Thomas Greggand a Mr. Nelson they stopped at "ye house of one Mr. Heard who marry'dMary widdow & relict of Henry Blagrave". During the visit Mary speaks ofthe sale of the land on Potomac Creek to Cary and Axton, confirming itssale and her and Blagrave's appearance in court to finalize the deal.Lowther goes on to testify that Mary said, "this descourse was some fewdays after sd Gowry had purchased ye sd land & that she then furtherDeclared yt ye sd Gowry had cheated her Sone in Lawe & that he should nothave the sd Land nor any other hereof ye sd Axton".
So let's look at this one. This mention of Ann Axton being under 21is one of the reasons I have used to pinpoint Ann's birth (see notes forher). Henry Blagrave I has died, and his widow has remarried to a mannamed Heard. According to Lowther, Mary tells him the sale to Cary andAxton was legitimate, and she attested to it in court (which we know istrue from the record). This conversation supposedly took place a fewdays after the sale to Gowry, which would mean it took place inmid-October the previous year.
She also tells Lowther that Gowry had cheated her "Sone in Lawe". Inthat era, "son-in-law" had a different meaning than today. Then, itoften meant "step-son" or "son" in certain cases, which bears on therelations of Mary more than anything else. But it would appear that sheis referring to Henry Blagrave II (we know she isn't referring to JohnSmith as we've have established she is not Ann Axton's mother). So Maryis claiming Gowry cheated Henry II, which is interesting because she,too, signed the sale to Gowry. If she is the only one who knows thetruth, why doesn't she appear to clear the whole matter up? Again,because I think she had some role in the deceit. And know that thelittle scam has been discovered she is now saying, "My boy wouldn't doanything wrong! It's that Gowry fellow, he must have cheated him."
JULY 13, 1687:
John & Rachell Gowry and John & Ann Smith (who must now be 21 else shecouldn't speak for herself) appear in court to sign an Article ofAgreement partitioning the Axton land. The primary dispute seems to havebeen over the western third of John Axton's 600-acre patent. The courtdecides that these 200 acres should be divided in two 100-acre plots,with Smith getting the southern 100 acres and Gowry getting thenorthern. Further Gowry is to build for Smith a fifteen foot dwelling onthe Smith portion of the land. Both couple's then sign the agreement, andthe matter is, supposedly settled. I will now quote the first portion ofthe agreement, because it deserves a more in depth look.
"ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT Indented agreed upon betweene JOHN GOWRY ofthe Coutny Stafford and RACHELL his Wife & JOHN SMITH of sd County & ANNEhis wife. Whereas there has been a suite & Controversies dependingebetween the said JOHN GOWRY and JOHN SMITH touching their respectiveRights to two hundred acres of land within the County of Stafford whichsd two hundred acres of land is the Remaindr. of a Pattent of Six hundredacres of land taken up by Capt. DAVID MANSFIELD [Mansell] and purchasedby JOHN AXTON & EDWARD CARY in fee from Mr. BLAGRAVE & his Wife theDaughtr. of said MANSFIELD. Whereas the said Deed of Purchase from sdBLAGRAVE & Wife is not to bee found, where on the sd GOWRY did repurchaseof the heires of the sd MANSFIELD the said Land wch sd GOWRY did sell onfoot agt. [against] the sd SMITH who did marry the heire of the wholeblood to the sd AXTON sone who was heire to the sd JOHN AXTON who was yeSurviving Joynt Tennant wth the ad CARY. Now to the end all furtherdifferences and Controversies may bee avoyded it is it is concluded &agreed upon between JOHN SMITH & JOHN GOWRY mutually from them & theirheires that for the equall dividing of the sd two hundred acres�." Therecord then goes on to describe the division. Then both the Gowrys andSmiths sign the agreement.
An additional declaration then follows which reads: "KNOW ALL MENby these presents that I JOHN SMITH of Stafford County doe fully (forconsideration recd) discharge JOHN GOWRY in the aforesd County from alldebrs dues, Childrens portion due me as marryinge the Eldest Daughter ofJOHN AXTON Deced or due to me or her as Admx. to JOHN AXTON JUNR. Estateof from all demand of any part of Estate due to her or me from sd JOHNGOWRY or from any other claime wtsoever from the beginning of the Worldto this day. As Witness or hands & Seales this 27th day of July 1686.(put entered into the record on July 13, 1687)
From this we see now that John Smith is not only represents hiswife, but as administrator for the late John Axton, Jr., he alsorepresents the Axton estate. If the estate of John Axton, Jr. is a partyin the dispute, then it would mean the whole situation arose prior tosettlement of his affairs (which fits the theories put forth earlier).John Smith and John Gowry are in dispute of only the western 200 acres ofthe property, once again begging the question -what about the other 400acres?
From all the testimony we have seen, it would appear the Smith-Axtonclaim to the land is rock solid. So why are they settling? The mainreason seems to be that they can't produce a deed for the land (and withthe shifting boundary lines of the times perhaps no one can locate theoriginal court record). Without Mary Mansell testifying herself to clearup the matter, there is no one to fully corroborate the Axton story, andshe isn't about to because it would implicate herself and her son in aillegal sale.
Why would Gowry settle though? He bought the land from Blagrave andis living on it. Perhaps he is simply caught in the middle, and justwants the matter to be over. I wonder if the dispute between Gowry andSmith is a heated one or if they are both victims of Blagrave'sdealings. We don't know what the "valuable consideration" he paidBlagrave was, but if he bought 600 acres and only ended up with 100acres, one would think he'd want his money back. Maybe the "valuableconsideration" was still a good deal. And if it was for anunder-the-table bargain with Blagrave that Gowry never fulfilled,Blagrave isn't now going to sue Gowry for it because it would revealBlagrave's dirty dealing. Gowry may have gotten the best deal of anyoneinvolved. Except who the person who ended up with the other 400 acres.Who got that? Did Smith get it? Or did Blagrave someone get it backafter selling twice (once to Axton, once to Gowry)?
One part of the story that doesn't fit is that the record mentionsthat Smith bought these 200 acres from Gowry. If he bought it, why isthere still a dispute over it? And if he felt it was his all along, whydid buy from Gowry?
Certainly, there are more still many questions about this veryinteresting case. And future research will likely cause a revision ofsome of the theories put forward here. But the story of this propertydoes not end there. And neither do the mysteries surrounding it.
In the notes for Mealy Whitecotton (John's grandson, the son of AnnAxton) we see that in 1706 Mealy sells 200 acres of land described asbeing on the south side of the Potomac Creek to none other than JohnGowry for 2500 pounds of tobacco. That leaves many questions. Is thisthe same 200 acres disputed 20 years earlier? Or is it one of the othertwo 200-acre sections? The first mention of the sale, dated 8 Jan 1706,says the land is already in the possession of Gowry, which would tend toindicate it's the land granted him in the agreement of July 1687. ButGowry was only given 100 acres in that agreement. Did the deal fallthrough? Is this 2500 pounds of tobacco some sort of payoff to Mealy tokeep the land his has been on for 20 years and avoid any more law suits?Who knows?
But then, on Dec. 9, 1724 John Smith, Ann Axton, and Meely Whitecottonappear to sell 200 acres of John Axton's 600-acre tract to one JosephWaugh, and then turn around and lease it back from him for life. Thisproperty is described as the "westerly" tract of the 600 acres. Thiswould be the same western 200 acres disputed back in 1687, and thendivided between Smith and Gowry. How did Mealy and family get it back?And what about that 200 acres sold to Gowry in 1706, wouldn't this be thesame land? It appears that Mealy has sold the same land at least twice?All quite confusing. But there is an interesting and amusing twist toend of the tale of this property. These 200 acres are sold as mentionedto Joseph Waugh, for the cost of 40 Pounds Sterling. Waugh on the sameday leases the land back to John, Ann, and Mealy for the rest of their"natural lives". In return for this lease John, Ann, and Mealy annuallyon the day of the feast of St. Michael are to pay Joseph Waugh "one earof Indian corn."
Is perhaps, Joseph Waugh, atoning for his role in the dispute whichoccurred nearly for decades earlier?
II have received a great deal of information on the Axton-Whitecottonfamilies of Stafford Co., VA from Rosalie Nadler and from MichelleTaunton. I have attempted here to piece together the data provided andunravel the story underneath it all.
John Axton is described as a plantation owner at a place called "TheNeck". The was a strip of land in eastern Virginia along theinter-coastal waterway. "The Neck" was the term used to describe thisland in the early 1600s, and it was located in old James City Co.,Virginia.
John Axton was claimed as a headright in a land patent issued to one Maj.Lewis Burwell in 1648. Prior to the formation of Stafford County hesettled on the southside of Potomac Creek, near the small branch known asBeaver Dam Creek (but was called Axton's Creek in colonial times or byits Indian name of Weepsiwasson Creek).
Whether this is the same area called "The Neck" is unknown as yet. Wecan deduce, though, that John Axton's arrival in America occurredsometime prior to 1648 when is mentioned in the patent for Maj. Burwell.
On October 30, 1662, this land is mentioned in Westmoreland County, Va.records when it reads: "Mr. Henry Blagrave and Mary his wife appearedbefore the Governor and Council on 25 September last past andacknowledged the sale of 600 acres to Edward Cary and John Axton." Thisland was first purchased in 1660, so this entry would be to attest to thefinal payment and transfer of the deed.
This land on Potomac Creek would be mentioned numerous times in the courtrecords for Stafford, as we can see in the notes for Ann Axton and MealyWhitecotton. The first time it is mentioned in reference to John Axtonis in 1668 in the court records. "Cavaliers and Pioneers", vol. 21666-1695, by Nell Marion Nugent (p45) contains the following which is atranscription of old court records:
"John Axoll (Axton), 600 acres, Stafford Co., south side of PotomackCreek, 23 Sept. 1668, p. 174. On westward side of Weepsiwasson Creekadjoining Mr. Henry Meese, Mr. Wm. Horton, Mr. Wllm. Haberd, &c. Grantedunto Capt. David Mansfield [also known as David Mansell], who assigned &made over in marriage unto Mr. Henry Blagrave and Mary his wife, daughterof said David, who sold to Edward Carey, decd., and Axton, and now duesaid Axton by survivorship."
What this means is that David Mansfield received a grant of 600acres, which then passed to his daughter Mary and her husband HenryBlagrave. John Axton with Edward Carey purchased the land from Blagraveand his wife. Edward Carey died, so the property passed to John Axton asthe surviving partner.
This entry is also important for another reason. Many researchershave claimed that John Axton was married to Mary Mansell (Mansfield),daughter of Capt. David Mansell. This record would seemingly end thatspeculation. Mary Mansell is obviously married to Henry Blagrave, whichwould make it extremely unlikely she gave birth to Ann Axton two yearsearlier.
This 600-acre property appears many times in the records of earlyStafford Co., much of it occurring after John Axton's death andconcerning his daughter (Ann Axton) and grandson (Mealy Whitecotton).But to follow the story was best as I can discern it I have included mostof those records here as follows. To set the stage, John Axton owns this600 acres, but sometime in the ensuing two decades he dies and the landpasses to his son, John Axton, Jr. But John, Jr. dies as well, makinghis young sister, Ann, the heir to the family's possessions.
It is at this point a flurry activity surrounds this land according toStafford Co. court records. In the interest of brevity, I paraphrasethese entries here, but can provide the full text for those you wish.This is how events seem to have proceeded�
OCTOBER 11, 1686:
Henry Blagrave II (son of Henry Blagrave and Mary Mansell) appears incourt to he is selling 600 acres first granted to his late grandfatherCapt. David Mansfield back on Oct. 6, 1654. The purchaser is one JohnGowry and he buying the land in exchange for "valuable consideration".Henry Glagrave II and his wife Sarah then sign the land over to Gowry.
We know though that the land doesn't belong to Henry. His fathersold it to Cary and Axton in in the 1660s and it passed soley to Axton in1668. How can he sell land he doesn't own? I believe Henry is trying topull a scam. John Axton has died and, as we shall see, his heir and sonJohn Axton, Jr. has died as well. This leaves Ann Axton as heir to herbrother and father. Ann though an underage widowed mother of an infantson. She is either a single mother or newly remarried, and perhapsBlagrave thinks he can pull one over on her.
Also, what is "valuable consideration"? Most sales state a specificprice, so what is Gowry giving Blagrave? "Valuable consideration" couldbe money, barter, a favor of some sort - most anything.
OCTOBER 13, 1686:
Mary (Mansell) Blagrave appears in court to sign over her right to landand attest to the sale to Gowry.
This is odd, and may indicate some level of complicity on Mary'spart. She was, after all, a party to the original sale of the land toCary & Axton. And she would appear to be the only party in that sale whois still alive. If anyone knows the truth, it would be her. Yet sheagrees to sell the land anyway.
DECEMBER 9, 1686:
Henry and Sarah Blagrave appear in court with their attorney, JosephWaugh. No action is taken in court this day, all that happens is theBlagrave are here to name Waugh as their representative for their rightto the 600 acres they sold to Gowry.
Why would the Blagraves need an attorney? Their sale to Gowry hasbeen finalized, and one rarely needed a lawyer in a simple landtransfer. It would seem logical that Waugh was brought in becausesomeone is now contesting Blagrave's right to sell the property. This aswe will learn is John Smith, who sometime recently has married the youngAnn Axton.
MARCH 10, 1687:
William Horton (mentioned as owning the adjacent property in the earlierrecords) appears in court to testify he was in the home of William Newellin July or August of 1660 at Middle Plantation when Edward Cary and JohnAxton first purchased this land (specified as 600 acres on the south ofPotomack Creeke) from Henry Blagrave for a final total of 1509 pounds oftobacco. And that Blagrave and his wife Mary appeared in court thefollowing winter to attest to sale. Horton also adds "yor Dept.[deponent, presumably Gowry] knows that ye said Cary & Axton pd ye saidTobo and further saith not", in other words "your clients is lying andknows it".
This entry establishes the date of the sale to Cary and Axton as thesummer of 1660. We can also begin to discern more about the strategy ofthe Blagrave-Gowry side. Horton is saying, "You know he paid thetobacco." This would only be important if someone now claims Axton hadnot paid (or not fully paid it), and therefore he never really owned theland. And if he never owned it, Henry II is free to sell it again.
Who is Horton talking to and about when he says "yor Dept."? Thedeponent must be Gowry who is mentioned on all the later records, but whois representing him. It must be Joseph Waugh who Blagrave has brought into speak for his interests.
JUNE 8, 1687:
Robert Brent appears to gives details of his survey of the 600 acres"pattented by Capt. David Mansfield since purchased by Jno. Axton". Thisincludes a long description of the property that tells of dividing linesrunning from this tree along a fence row to that tree, etc., etc. Themain point is that the surveyor (for John Gowry) has divided the propertyinto three equal 200-acre sections, and that Gowry has chosen the"westerly" 200 acres for his own. The survey also states that theproperty is "uncleared". And further, that the 200 acres Gowry haschosen is to be divided in thirds again, with Gowry getting 2/3 of thatland where he "now lives" and the other 1/3 goes to one Jacob Hubbard.
So the land is uncleared. This would seem to indicate that JohnAxton never farmed the land. If the land sat unused for 27 years, thatmight explain why Blagrave thought he could resell it. Perhaps hethought no one would notice. And if Gowry is already residing on theland, then the Axton family must have resided elsewhere. Still thequestion would arise, what about the 400 acres that Gowry didn't chose?Who gets that? And why does Gowry get to chose in the first place? Thebeginning of the record says that the land in question was first"patented by Capt. David Mansfield since purchased by Jno. Axton". Sothe court is acknowledging, even while dividing the land, that John Axtondid own it.
JUNE 9, 1687:
A woman name Christian Waddington appears in court. Much of the originalrecord has waded, making it illegible. Still the portion that can beread is clear in its intent. She basically stating that she was therewhen Cary & Axton grew 1500 pounds of tobacco on her husband's plantationwhich they then paid to Blagrave for the 600 acres granted to DavidMansfield.
Again here someone is testifying to about the tobacco,strengthening, I believe, my contention that Gowry and/or Henry BlagraveII now claim otherwise.
JUNE 9, 1687:
The court entry immediately following Waddington's testimony has JohnSmith appearing in court "for & on behalfe of Ann my wife an Infant underye age of twenty & one yeares Daugtr. of Jno. Axton late of StaffordCounty agts. [against] John Gowry & Rachell his wife Defts.[defendants]". On this day John Smith deposed one Gerrard Lowther.Lowther testifies that on a journey to Jamestown with Mr. Thomas Greggand a Mr. Nelson they stopped at "ye house of one Mr. Heard who marry'dMary widdow & relict of Henry Blagrave". During the visit Mary speaks ofthe sale of the land on Potomac Creek to Cary and Axton, confirming itssale and her and Blagrave's appearance in court to finalize the deal.Lowther goes on to testify that Mary said, "this descourse was some fewdays after sd Gowry had purchased ye sd land & that she then furtherDeclared yt ye sd Gowry had cheated her Sone in Lawe & that he should nothave the sd Land nor any other hereof ye sd Axton".
So let's look at this one. This mention of Ann Axton being under 21is one of the reasons I have used to pinpoint Ann's birth (see notes forher). Henry Blagrave I has died, and his widow has remarried to a mannamed Heard. According to Lowther, Mary tells him the sale to Cary andAxton was legitimate, and she attested to it in court (which we know istrue from the record). This conversation supposedly took place a fewdays after the sale to Gowry, which would mean it took place inmid-October the previous year.
She also tells Lowther that Gowry had cheated her "Sone in Lawe". Inthat era, "son-in-law" had a different meaning than today. Then, itoften meant "step-son" or "son" in certain cases, which bears on therelations of Mary more than anything else. But it would appear that sheis referring to Henry Blagrave II (we know she isn't referring to JohnSmith as we've have established she is not Ann Axton's mother). So Maryis claiming Gowry cheated Henry II, which is interesting because she,too, signed the sale to Gowry. If she is the only one who knows thetruth, why doesn't she appear to clear the whole matter up? Again,because I think she had some role in the deceit. And know that thelittle scam has been discovered she is now saying, "My boy wouldn't doanything wrong! It's that Gowry fellow, he must have cheated him."
JULY 13, 1687:
John & Rachell Gowry and John & Ann Smith (who must now be 21 else shecouldn't speak for herself) appear in court to sign an Article ofAgreement partitioning the Axton land. The primary dispute seems to havebeen over the western third of John Axton's 600-acre patent. The courtdecides that these 200 acres should be divided in two 100-acre plots,with Smith getting the southern 100 acres and Gowry getting thenorthern. Further Gowry is to build for Smith a fifteen foot dwelling onthe Smith portion of the land. Both couple's then sign the agreement, andthe matter is, supposedly settled. I will now quote the first portion ofthe agreement, because it deserves a more in depth look.
"ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT Indented agreed upon betweene JOHN GOWRY ofthe Coutny Stafford and RACHELL his Wife & JOHN SMITH of sd County & ANNEhis wife. Whereas there has been a suite & Controversies dependingebetween the said JOHN GOWRY and JOHN SMITH touching their respectiveRights to two hundred acres of land within the County of Stafford whichsd two hundred acres of land is the Remaindr. of a Pattent of Six hundredacres of land taken up by Capt. DAVID MANSFIELD [Mansell] and purchasedby JOHN AXTON & EDWARD CARY in fee from Mr. BLAGRAVE & his Wife theDaughtr. of said MANSFIELD. Whereas the said Deed of Purchase from sdBLAGRAVE & Wife is not to bee found, where on the sd GOWRY did repurchaseof the heires of the sd MANSFIELD the said Land wch sd GOWRY did sell onfoot agt. [against] the sd SMITH who did marry the heire of the wholeblood to the sd AXTON sone who was heire to the sd JOHN AXTON who was yeSurviving Joynt Tennant wth the ad CARY. Now to the end all furtherdifferences and Controversies may bee avoyded it is it is concluded &agreed upon between JOHN SMITH & JOHN GOWRY mutually from them & theirheires that for the equall dividing of the sd two hundred acres�." Therecord then goes on to describe the division. Then both the Gowrys andSmiths sign the agreement.
An additional declaration then follows which reads: "KNOW ALL MENby these presents that I JOHN SMITH of Stafford County doe fully (forconsideration recd) discharge JOHN GOWRY in the aforesd County from alldebrs dues, Childrens portion due me as marryinge the Eldest Daughter ofJOHN AXTON Deced or due to me or her as Admx. to JOHN AXTON JUNR. Estateof from all demand of any part of Estate due to her or me from sd JOHNGOWRY or from any other claime wtsoever from the beginning of the Worldto this day. As Witness or hands & Seales this 27th day of July 1686.(put entered into the record on July 13, 1687)
From this we see now that John Smith is not only represents hiswife, but as administrator for the late John Axton, Jr., he alsorepresents the Axton estate. If the estate of John Axton, Jr. is a partyin the dispute, then it would mean the whole situation arose prior tosettlement of his affairs (which fits the theories put forth earlier).John Smith and John Gowry are in dispute of only the western 200 acres ofthe property, once again begging the question -what about the other 400acres?
From all the testimony we have seen, it would appear the Smith-Axtonclaim to the land is rock solid. So why are they settling? The mainreason seems to be that they can't produce a deed for the land (and withthe shifting boundary lines of the times perhaps no one can locate theoriginal court record). Without Mary Mansell testifying herself to clearup the matter, there is no one to fully corroborate the Axton story, andshe isn't about to because it would implicate herself and her son in aillegal sale.
Why would Gowry settle though? He bought the land from Blagrave andis living on it. Perhaps he is simply caught in the middle, and justwants the matter to be over. I wonder if the dispute between Gowry andSmith is a heated one or if they are both victims of Blagrave'sdealings. We don't know what the "valuable consideration" he paidBlagrave was, but if he bought 600 acres and only ended up with 100acres, one would think he'd want his money back. Maybe the "valuableconsideration" was still a good deal. And if it was for anunder-the-table bargain with Blagrave that Gowry never fulfilled,Blagrave isn't now going to sue Gowry for it because it would revealBlagrave's dirty dealing. Gowry may have gotten the best deal of anyoneinvolved. Except who the person who ended up with the other 400 acres.Who got that? Did Smith get it? Or did Blagrave someone get it backafter selling twice (once to Axton, once to Gowry)?
One part of the story that doesn't fit is that the record mentionsthat Smith bought these 200 acres from Gowry. If he bought it, why isthere still a dispute over it? And if he felt it was his all along, whydid buy from Gowry?
Certainly, there are more still many questions about this veryinteresting case. And future research will likely cause a revision ofsome of the theories put forward here. But the story of this propertydoes not end there. And neither do the mysteries surrounding it.
In the notes for Mealy Whitecotton (John's grandson, the son of AnnAxton) we see that in 1706 Mealy sells 200 acres of land described asbeing on the south side of the Potomac Creek to none other than JohnGowry for 2500 pounds of tobacco. That leaves many questions. Is thisthe same 200 acres disputed 20 years earlier? Or is it one of the othertwo 200-acre sections? The first mention of the sale, dated 8 Jan 1706,says the land is already in the possession of Gowry, which would tend toindicate it's the land granted him in the agreement of July 1687. ButGowry was only given 100 acres in that agreement. Did the deal fallthrough? Is this 2500 pounds of tobacco some sort of payoff to Mealy tokeep the land his has been on for 20 years and avoid any more law suits?Who knows?
But then, on Dec. 9, 1724 John Smith, Ann Axton, and Meely Whitecottonappear to sell 200 acres of John Axton's 600-acre tract to one JosephWaugh, and then turn around and lease it back from him for life. Thisproperty is described as the "westerly" tract of the 600 acres. Thiswould be the same western 200 acres disputed back in 1687, and thendivided between Smith and Gowry. How did Mealy and family get it back?And what about that 200 acres sold to Gowry in 1706, wouldn't this be thesame land? It appears that Mealy has sold the same land at least twice?All quite confusing. But there is an interesting and amusing twist toend of the tale of this property. These 200 acres are sold as mentionedto Joseph Waugh, for the cost of 40 Pounds Sterling. Waugh on the sameday leases the land back to John, Ann, and Mealy for the rest of their"natural lives". In return for this lease John, Ann, and Mealy annuallyon the day of the feast of St. Michael are to pay Joseph Waugh "one earof Indian corn."
Is perhaps, Joseph Waugh, atoning for his role in the dispute whichoccurred nearly for decades earlier?
Events
| Birth | Abt 1620 | England | |||
| Marriage | Abt 1640 | ||||
| Reference No | 3856 | ||||
| Death | Stafford County, Virginia |
Families
| Child | Ann Axton (1666 - ) |
| Child | John Axton Jr. ( - ) |