The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce the completion of the Petersburg chancery causes digital project. The scanning project was funded by the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program along with a $155,071 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The collection has been digitized from 1787 through 1912 and the images added to the Chancery Records Index. The most recently added suits cover the years 1889-1912.

The following are a few suits of interest found in the newly added Petersburg chancery digital images. 

In chancery cause 1907-055, George E. Fisher, for, etc. vs. Virginia Passenger & Power Company, etc., the plaintiffs ask the court to take over the floundering Virginia Passenger & Power Company in order to protect their financial stake in the business. The suit contains numerous exhibits including plats (images 616, 2030, 2032), minutes from board of directors’ and stockholders’ meetings (images 1878 and 1673). In 1908-034, John F. Crowder, etc. vs. Eli Tartt, etc., the suit stems from the unhappiness of the First Baptist (Colored) Church members with their pastor Eli Tartt. The plaintiffs wanted the court to remove Tartt as pastor of the church and their bill of complaint gives an account of a church meeting that became so uncontrollable that local police had to be called in to restore order (image 7). Crowder, the custodian of the church records, also accused Tartt of breaking open an iron safe in order to steal the records of the church (image 10). The church constitution was used as an exhibit in the suit (image 18). Chancery cause 1911-025, Frank Roberts vs. Emma Grace Roberts, is a scandalous divorce case in which plaintiff Frank Roberts claimed that his wife was impregnated by a person other than him. A letter from Mrs. Roberts’ paramour, living in Idaho at the time, was referred to in a deposition (image 19) and used as an exhibit (image 21).

The Petersburg (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1787–1912, are a nationally significant archival collection. The collection consists of approximately 270,000 leaves and 3,900 individual cases. The records illuminate the lives of numerous under-documented populations through a host of primary sources such as depositions, bills of complaint, affidavits, wills, business records, correspondence, and photographs. These records are particularly significant to historians in three ways: they enable historians to study industrial and economic development in an urban area, and the extent to which such cities provided opportunities for upward mobility, especially to minorities, in the eighteenth century; they document the lives of free African Americans in the city with the largest population of freedmen in the Mid-Atlantic states prior to 1860; and they contribute significantly to existing and future scholarship in the humanities, especially in the areas of African American, women’s, and legal history, but also with great potential in the areas of labor, immigrant, economic, and social history.

-Sherri Bagley, Local Records Archivist

If watching Blair Underwood uncover his roots inspires you to start researching your own family tree, the Library of Virginia is a great place to start. In addition to our collections that contain a wealth of Virginia records, we offer a guide on how to begin your genealogical research and one on the genealogical resources available here at the library. If you’re not in the mood to leave your couch, you can get started on your research tonight by tuning in to NBC WWBT channel 12 from 5:00 to 6:30. Library staff will be on air for the Call 12 segment to answer questions about the Library of Virginia and its resources for genealogy.

The latest images from the Petersburg chancery causes digitization project are now available on the Chancery Records Index. The scanning project is funded by the Circuit Court Records Preservation Program along with a $155,071 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Chancery causes for Petersburg can now be viewed online through 1888. The following is an example of an interesting suit found in this latest addition.

Petersburg chancery suit 1850-025, Chesterfield Railroad Co.] vs. Richmond & Danville Railroad Co.] and Richmond & Danville Railroad Co.] vs. Chesterfield Railroad Co.], is a rich resource for research on the history of the rail and mining industries in the Richmond area. The suit concerns a dispute between the mule and gravity powered Chesterfield Railroad Company and the steam powered Richmond & Danville Railroad Company over access to the Manchester coal yards on the James River opposite Rocketts Landing. Since 1830, the Chesterfield Railroad Company held a monopoly on transporting coal from the Midlothian mines to the James River. The railroad used gravity to transport coal-laden railcars downhill and draft animals to pull them uphill. The company emptied the railcars on James River docks in Manchester, and the mules and horses brought the empty railcars back to the mines. The Richmond & Danville Railroad emerged as a competitor to the Chesterfield Railroad Company in the late 1840s. The Richmond & Danville began building its own rail line from the Midlothian mines to the James and wanted equal access to the coal yards. Knowing that it would be put out of business by the faster, cheaper services of the steam powered line, the Chesterfield Railroad sued to prevent the Richmond & Danville’s access. The R & D quickly countersued, and the Chesterfield County circuit court heard both suits, first in Chesterfield County, then finally in Petersburg circuit court. The suit includes depositions from numerous individuals associated with both railroad companies, as well as multiple plats showing the rail lines of both companies between the Midlothian mines and the James River (images 86, 735, 750).

The Petersburg chancery causes scanning project is nearly complete. Additional image postings will be made in the coming months.

 -Greg Crawford, Local Records Coordinator

While processing Petersburg (Va.) Coroners’ Inquisitions, 1807-1947, I found these references to the “reefer man” intriguing. Early in Virginia’s history, the Jamestown Colony made cannabis cultivation mandatory because hemp was viewed as a critical crop for rope, clothing, and canvas. After the formation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, marijuana was soon regulated as a drug in every state, and, by 1937, with the passing of the Marijuana Tax Act, the production of hemp in addition to marijuana was prohibited.

In the 1930s, marijuana made its presence known in American popular culture. The 1933 film, International House, featured Cab Calloway performing what has become a classic song, “Reefer Man,” about a man who enjoys his marijuana cigarettes.  The mid-1930s soon saw the beginnings of anti-drug propaganda that warned that smoking marijuana would lead to misery, shame, and despair. The most famous propaganda film of this era was the 1936 film Reefer Madness. Originally titled Tell Your Children, Reefer Madness was a film financed by a church group to warn parents melodramatically of the dangers that ensued when high school students were lured by pushers to try marijuana. In the film, the smoking of marijuana soon turns to murder, suicide, attempted rape, and descent into madness.

The 1930s timeframe of this case coincides with the rise of anti-drug propaganda in the United States. There are no references in the coroner’s inquisition to the use of drugs other than Margaret  Jacobs’ remarks, but was this an instance of a drug deal gone bad? Or, did Mrs. Jacobs simply see or hear of the movie and become alarmed about the evil that lurked in the world of the “reefer man” and fear for her son’s involvement?   We may never know these answers, but either way the “reefer man” had made his presence known.

 -Mary Dean Carter, Local Records Archival Assistant

At one o’clock in the morning on 1 September 1859, Milly T. King arrived at the home of James Clary and found his slave Hannah “lying on the hearth gasping for breath, and I thought dying.” When King saw Hannah an hour later, she was dead. The following day Brunswick County coroner William Lett arrived to examine the body.  With him were twelve men, none of whom had a medical background but rather were chosen as upstanding men and representatives of the county. The office of coroner held inquisitions in cases when persons met a sudden, violent, unnatural, or suspicious death. In this case Hannah had certainly met a sudden and suspicious demise.

Hannah, owned by the late Elizabeth H. Harwell, had been in the possession of James Clary, who adamantly maintained that the marks found on her feet and legs and the wound on her head were not from anything suspicious but came as a result of a fall from a window occurring a few weeks before her death. The coroner and his jury of white men were left to decide if Hannah had suffered an accidental death or if her death had been caused by something more malicious. Clary’s wife, Eliza, backed up her husband’s statements and claimed to know nothing of Hannah’s death, maintaining that her wounds were caused by the fall. But the Clarys’ neighbors painted a different picture of the events surrounding Hannah’s death.

Milly King heard Hannah “wailing and begging as though she was under severe chastisement” and reported Eliza Clary saying “she would kill [Hannah] if she did not do better.” Samuel King recalled seeing Hannah “tied across a log hands and feet” with Clary “whipping her with a leather rein doubled” two weeks prior to her death. Clary was said to have explained that he was “whipping her for going in the table cloth and taking out something to eat.” Samuel testified that he heard Hannah at other times, including the day before she died, “making lamentations as if under severe chastisement and sometimes for nearly an hour at a time.” Another neighbor also heard “some person begging and heard some blows as if inflicted with a large switch…”

Faced with contradictory evidence from witnesses, a doctor was finally summoned to provide a physician’s view of events. Dr. Robert S. Powell testified that all of Hannah’s wounds “did their part in hastening the fatal termination,” and the large wound on her head “would ultimately have produced death without medical assistance.” When questioned if her myriad of wounds could have come from a fall, Powell replied that the large head wound could have, but that her other wounds could not have come from the same fall. Powell further believed that “the marks of chastisements had been inflicted about 48 hours” before he saw her, which certainly contradicted Clary’s claims that Hannah’s wounds came from a fall occurring weeks before her death.

After examining the body and hearing testimony, the coroner and his jurors determined that Hannah did not die from a fall but that the “deceased came to her death by abuse inflicted on her person at sundry times during the present year and in various ways by choking and by blows inflicted on her head, body, and limbs,” and some of the blows appeared “to have been inflicted with switches and by other heavier weapons we know not what in the hands of James Clary.”

Virginia coroners were frequently called upon to investigate the deaths of slaves and were often reluctant to place blame in these instances. In the case of Hannah, the coroner and jury did not hesitate to blame Clary for her murder. However, a similar case in Petersburg showed a different outcome. Reuben, a 40-year-old slave, died in 1843 after being “severely whipped” by John Minetree. The coroner found “his body marked with many blows of the cowhide” yet the whipping was not considered a sufficient cause of death. It was determined that Reuben came to his death from an “undue quantity of cold water in his stomach, while under excessive heat and exhaustion.” The coroner and his jury censured the severity of the whipping, but Minetree was discharged from all murder charges.  A similar death happened in Frederick County when Lucy met her end in 1833. Earlier on the day of her death, Lucy had been whipped about the thighs as punishment for stealing some “trifling article” from a neighbor. After her punishment she was sent about her day’s work. While working over the fire Lucy fainted and struck her head on the hearth. The coroner determined that the whipping and fall were the cause of her death but no blame was placed on her owner because there was “no intention to kill on the part of her master.”

The separate office of coroner was created in about 1660 to hold inquisitions into sudden, suspicious, and violent deaths. Causes of death found in coroner’s inquisitions include murder, infanticide, suicide, exposure to the elements, drownings, train accidents, and natural causes. Coroner’s inquisitions are a valuable source for local, social, and legal history. They are especially useful for those researching African Americans. The gender and race of the deceased was often noted in the inquests. If the deceased was African American, the inquest would identify the individual as either a slave or a free person, and if the deceased was a slave, the inquest would include the name of the slaveowner. Currently, the following counties and cities have coroner’s inquisitions available for research at the Library of Virginia: Amelia County, Amherst County, Arlington County, Bedford County, Botetourt County, Brunswick County, Charlotte County, Frederick County, Henrico County, Norfolk County, Petersburg (City), and Rockbridge County.

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

 

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that the first installment of images from the Petersburg chancery causes digitization project have been added to the Chancery Records Index. This project has been funded, in part, through a $155,071 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Images for the first forty-four boxes of chancery suits have been added to the index (circa 1803-1845). The boxes are not strictly chronological, so not all images for a given year are available. Additional images will be added periodically as the project progresses. Be sure to check back!

Here are some interesting suits that archivists found while processing, indexing, and conserving the collection. Many other fascinating and complex stories will surely be uncovered once the project is complete and the collection is studied by students, scholars, and family historians.

Transcript of Benjamin W. B. Jones Letter to William Smith, 5 February 1826

Petersburg chancery cause 1827-003 involves a dispute over a runaway slave named Davey, alias Davey Smith. Exhibits found in the suit include a notice published in a local newspaper describing Davey’s physical appearance, occupation, and his escape (image 22). The suit also contains letters from Benjamin W. B. Jones of Alabama claiming that he was Davey’s owner (image 27). 

Also in the newly released images there are two suits that involve an African American woman named Jane.  She was a slave of Edwin Lanier of Sussex County, who owned the Prince George County plantation where Jane lived.  Lanier’s will called for Jane to be emancipated upon his death, which occurred in 1828. She was the only one of Lanier’s slaves to be set free. In the first suit, 1834-015, Jane sues the administrator and heirs of Lanier’s estate to receive the property and cash bequeathed to her in Lanier’s will (image 23). The second suit, 1840-066, has its origin in several judgment suits heard in Sussex County. Lanier’s administrator and others successfully sued Jane for debts she owed as a consequence of the property she received from her former owner. When Jane could not repay the money owed, she was placed in the Petersburg jail. The case details Jane’s efforts to win back the freedom she had enjoyed only briefly. 

Jane’s certificate of freedom, the paperwork that had to be carried by freed persons of color, is used as an exhibit in the suit (image 46).  To add to the drama, Jane had several children and became pregnant during the course of the litigation. Sadly, Jane lost the case. Since she was unable to repay the debts, which included interest, Jane and her children were to be hired out as “servants and apprentices” for fourteen years to work off their debts. The sheriff auctioned Jane and her family to the highest bidder on the steps of the Petersburg courthouse (image 31).

In his will, Lanier allowed that Jane could remain on his plantation for nine months after his death and then move to a free state of her choosing. A statute passed by the General of Assembly of Virginia in 1806 stated that freed slaves had to leave the commonwealth within one year of their emancipation or they forfeited their freedom. The defendants in the earlier suit (1834-015) cited this law in their response to Jane’s complaint regarding the money and property.  They argued that Jane was no longer free because she had remained in Virginia beyond the twelve months. The defendants in the later suit (1840-066) also cited the 1806 law telling Jane that if she were truly a free person she would leave the commonwealth.

Did Jane need the money from Lanier’s estate to travel to a free state? Did she choose to stay in Virginia in spite of the law? Feel free to share your thoughts and opinions as to why Jane remained in Virgina in the comments.

-Vince Brooks, Senior Local Records Archivist

The City of Petersburg chancery records scanning project officially began on Friday June 3! The first 50 boxes of case-files were loaded for transfer to LVA’s digital vendor (Backstage Library Works) in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Imaging of these fragile court papers will begin next week and resulting images will be posted to the Chancery Records Index (CRI) after ensuring they meet strict preservation and quality control standards. The records date from 1787 to 1912 and consist of 150 cubic feet, including bills of complaint, affidavits, wills, business records, correspondence, and photographs.

Partially funded by a $155,071 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), this project marks the second chancery collection housed at the Library of Virginia to receive federal grant support in 2011. The Library was one of only 33 institutions nationwide to receive a grant in the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources category and one of only two state archives awarded grants by NEH.

Prior to 1860 Petersburg had the largest population of freedmen in the Mid-Atlantic states. The records offer social, demographic, and economic details that affected state, regional, and national politics; legal decisions; and institutions. The evolution of Petersburg’s economy from one based on tobacco to one centered on milling and manufacturing can be explored through the chancery records. The importance of Petersburg as a prosperous and diverse city—the state’s largest market town and center of economic activity—is seen in the chancery causes.

As a commercial and industrial center as well as a transportation hub Petersburg attracted an unusually large number of free African Americans. By 1860 Petersburg had a population of 18,000 including more than 3,000 free African Americans, half of whom were women. The suits document this aspect of Petersburg’s robust and diverse population as free African Americans, women, laborers, and artisans used the courts to recover debts, settle estates, divorce spouses, assert land ownership, or dissolve partnerships.

Please stay tuned to the blog as we update our progress on this important project.

-Carl Childs, Local Records Director

The Library of Virginia has received a grant of $155,071 from the National Endowment for the Humanities to support the scanning of the City of Petersburg chancery records, a significant collection for researchers interested in the African American experience, women’s history, and southern labor and business history in the antebellum and post–Civil War periods. The Library of Virginia is one of only 33 institutions to receive a grant in the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources category and one of only two state archives awarded an NEH grant.

 The Petersburg chancery causes are comprised of case files from the City of Petersburg Court of Chancery, 1803 to 1912, and consist of 150 cubic feet and include bills of complaint, affidavits, wills, business records, correspondence, and photographs. Prior to 1860 Petersburg had the largest population of freedmen in the Mid-Atlantic states. The records offer social, demographic, and economic details that affected state, regional, and national politics; legal decisions; and institutions. The evolution of Petersburg’s economy from one based on tobacco to one centered on milling and manufacturing can be explored through the chancery records. The importance of Petersburg as a prosperous and diverse city—the state’s largest market town and center of economic activity—is seen in the chancery causes. As a commercial and industrial center as well as a transportation hub Petersburg attracted an unusually large number of free African Americans. By 1860 Petersburg had a population of 18,000 including more than 3,000 free African Americans, half of whom were women. The suits document this aspect of Petersburg’s robust and diverse population as free African Americans, women, laborers, and artisans used the courts to recover debts, settle estates, divorce spouses, assert land ownership, or dissolve partnerships.

 A chancery cause is one that could not be decided readily by existing written laws. Decisions were made by a justice or judge, not a jury, and on the basis of fairness, or equity. These justices administered most facets of local government and were the face of government for most people during this period. As justices made decisions based on equity, they expressed social mores and values that governed everyday life in communities. They were appointed, not elected, until 1852, and most were not trained lawyers. Since chancery cases dealt with issues of equity rather than law, they often contain lengthy depositions, similar to oral histories, and can also hold other valuable materials in the form of exhibits submitted to the court. It is not uncommon to find land plats, correspondence, wills, publications, photographs, architectural drawings, and the like as exhibits. As such, these records are vital to genealogists and historians.

 This project will provide free online access to all pre-1913 Petersburg chancery causes. The Chancery Records Index is available through the Library’s Virginia Memory Web portal (www.virginiamemory.com). Currently, records from 49 localities can be searched through the index. The scanning project will begin in May 2011 and be complete on April 30, 2012.

On 22 December 1892, Edmonia DeHaven, 18, and Singleton Livingood, 34, a saloon keeper, were married in Winchester by the Reverend William Harper. Seventeen months later, a woman arrived from Ohio claiming to be Singleton’s “lawful wife.”  Soon after this revelation, R. E. Byrd, prosecuting attorney for Frederick County, issued an arrest warrant on the charge of bigamy, but was unable to serve the warrant.

Singleton, either learning of his impending arrest or ready for a change of scenery, slipped town deserting both women. A man with a name like Singleton Livingood was probably meant to stay a bachelor. After waiting for roughly five years, Edmonia sued for and received a divorce. The case of Edmonia Livingood v. Singleton Livingood, 1899, is part of the Frederick County Chancery Court Collection. An early accession of Frederick County chancery causes, 1745-1926, was processed in the 1990s and is available on microfilm.  Additional Frederick County chancery causes, 1866-1923, accession 42505, were transferred to the LVA and are presently being processed.  This portion, which includes the Singleton Livingood case, will be digitally reformatted as the budget permits.

 -Sam Walters, Local Records Archivist

While processing Petersburg City Chancery Causes, I came across a deposition in the divorce case of Richard Green vs. Henrietta Green, 1887. The witness was Joseph (Joe) Evidence.  I have processed chancery causes for ten years and this is the first time I came across a case with such a last name. 

Joseph Evidence and his wife, Ellen, appear only in the 1900 Census – two of three people in the country, all in Petersburg, with that surname.  He is listed as black, a head of household, aged 40 years, a factory hand, and married to Ellen Evidence, 30. One Mandy Evidence, possibly his daughter, is listed in the 1920 census.  The 1930 census lists no one with that surname in the United States. The text of the deposition shows that Joe Evidence lived up to his name and also testified in a previous court case.

Joe Evidence Deposition Transcript

 -Sherri Bagley, Local Records Archivist