The plaintiff, R. E. Gatewood, filed a civil suit against the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company in James City County Circuit Court on 3 November 1884.  In his statement to the court, Gatewood blamed C&O Railway for a fire that caused extensive damage to his property on 14 October 1884.  Greenwood claimed that a C&O steam locomotive passing through his property did not have a spark arrestor or, if it did, the spark arrestor was not working properly. (A spark arrestor was a wire netting designed to prevent sparks or other tiny flaming debris from escaping the locomotive’s “balloon stack.”)  As a result of the “careless negligence” of the defendant, the plaintiff’s property was set on fire by sparks emitted from the steam locomotive.  Valuable timber including oak, chestnut, walnut, and pine worth $370 were destroyed by the fire as well as chestnut rail fences worth $30.  Gatewood demanded $400 in compensation for the severe injury done to him by the C&O Railway Company.

No rebuttal by C&O Railway Company to Gatewood’s statements was found in the suit.  However, the two oversize exhibits, the plat and the illustration of the engine boiler, were produced by C&O Railway Company perhaps to show a) the extent of damage by the fire was not as much as the plaintiff alleged and b) all C&O steam locomotives were equipped with spark arrestors.  The tiny arrows show how the mixture of cinders and ash flow through the locomotive, up the balloon stack, and into the spark arrestor.  What I found interesting is that the illustration shows some cinder and ash making it past the spark arrestor.  I believe the reason why is that C&O Railway Company wanted to make the point that, while the spark arrestor does a great job preventing most of the cinder and ash from escaping the balloon stack, it does not catch them all.  Consequently, the escaping cinder and ash could start a fire such as the one on Gatewood’s property, but the cause of the fire was accidental and not “careless negligence” on the part of C&O Railway Company.

In its verdict in June 1885, the jury sided with the plaintiff, Gatewood; however, he had to come away from the trial extremely disappointed.  The jury assessed the damages done to his property by C&O Railway Company at $32.55.  Apparently, the two exhibits produced by C&O Railway Company influenced the jury’s decision.  Was C&O Railway and Company responsible for the fire?  Yes.  But was the fire due to “careless negligence” on the part of the railroad company and the damage caused by the fire as extensive as Gatewood claimed?  No.  The only consolation for Gatewood was that he received just enough money to buy new chestnut rail fences.  

The James City County/Williamsburg Judgments, 1877-1891, are open for research and available at the Library of Virginia.

-Greg Crawford, Local Records Services Coordinator

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for Lee County Chancery Causes, 1857-1912, are now available on the Chancery Records Index. Because they rely so heavily on the testimony of witnesses, chancery causes contain a wealth of historical and genealogical information and are especially useful when researching local, state, social, and legal history. The Lee County chancery collection offers a glimpse of life in Lee County during the 19^th and early-20^th centuries by documenting the African American experience, women’s history, Southern business and labor history, and the impact the railroad’s arrival had on a region. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

Lee County chancery causes contain several suits illustrating the experiences of women in the westernmost part of the commonwealth. In Mary V. Pennington by etc. vs. M. C. Parsons, etc., 1887-019, Mary Pennington sought to gain control over land gifted to her by her father. The land was being sold by her husband, William Pennington, who had become “indebted and greatly embarrassed.” In 1907, Elizabeth Smith faced a similar dilemma. Elizabeth R. Smith vs. J. K. P. Legg, etc., 1907-045, protested the sale of Smith’s land sold for a set of blacksmith tools. Elizabeth Smith did not agree to the sale, but her husband, Samuel L. Smith, “commenced to abuse her and threatened to beat her, and to kill her father B. W. Barker if she did not sign the deed,” forcing her to agree to the sale. Both suits were dismissed by the court.

The arrival of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad had significant impact on the region with suits filed by and against the company appearing several times in the chancery collection. In Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. vs. Nimrod Noe, 1891-012, the railroad attempted to halt payments Nimrod Noe received in a condemnation proceeding by claiming that Noe falsely represented the damages and losses done to his property by the arrival of the railroad. In the Petition of A. L. Loyd, Administrator, 1902-003, a settlement is sought for B. H. Loyd’s family after his death in a railroad accident. B. H. Loyd, an engineer with the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, was killed after losing control of his locomotive and colliding with another train on a foggy night.

The Lee County chancery causes are also not without their share of scandal. F. E. Parsons sued her late husband’s heirs seeking dower rights to land inherited by her husband in F. E. Parsons, widow vs. Ellen Jessee, etc., 1897-006. The heirs claimed that F. E. Parsons, nineteen at the time of her marriage, only married their sixty-year-old father to gain ownership of his property. The widow accused her husband’s children of attempting to intimidate her by circulating “false and scandalous charges,” including accusing her of having an abortion before the marriage.  In the divorce suit Lilly C. Turner vs. Richard M. Turner, 1894-082, Lilly Turner describes her husband as “living in open adultery for some time” and taking “pleasure in writing [her] about his filthy conduct.” Filed as an exhibit in the case is an 1893 letter Richard Turner sent to his wife describing the women he was having affairs with.

Lee County joins fifty-seven counties and cities whose chancery causes have been digitally reformatted and made available through the Library’s innovative Circuit Court Records Preservation Program, which seeks to preserve the historic records of Virginia’s Circuit Courts. 

-Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist

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

Transcript of Sen. Glasgow’s letter.

(Editor’s Note: The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that scanning has now been performed on the Craig County and Pulaski County chancery causes. The digital collections are now available online through the Chancery Records Index.)

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that processing and indexing of the Craig County and Pulaski County chancery causes is now complete.  Each of Virginia’s circuit courts created chancery records that contain considerable historical and genealogical information. Because the records rely so heavily on testimony from witnesses, they offer a unique glimpse into the lives of Virginians from the early 18th century through the First World War. The indexes for both counties have been added to the Library’s online Chancery Records Index and are now available for research.

Craig County chancery covers the years 1853-1942, with the bulk of the cases falling between 1853 and 1912.  One suit of particular interest to researchers of African American education is the suit of Paris W. Compton vs. Admr. of Cornelius Compton, 1913-009, in which Paris was suing his father’s administrator to receive his inheritance.  In his bill, he states that he and his mother had moved to “Ardmore near the city of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania, at which place your complainant has been attending school, for the reason that persons of his race are afforded approved, better, and more improved educational facilities and advantages than are afforded in his home state of Virginia.” Researchers may also want to take a tour through the whiskey distillery account books of Andrew McCartney and read an 1882 letter from Senator W. A. Glasgow.  The senator replied to McCartney’s complaint against a law that prohibited the sale of small amounts of liquor – less than five gallons – near an iron manufacturing company, a measure devised to stop workers from showing up drunk (see 1908-011, Admr. of Andrew McCartney vs. F. B. McCartney etc).

The majority of the suits concern issues of debt or land partition between heirs.  Through these chancery causes it is also possible to see evidence of the development of the iron ore mining and timber industries as well as hints of a slate and wool industry.  Land development companies such as the Craig City Improvement Company and the New Castle Land and Improvement Company were formed to encourage industrial growth although, as evidenced by the many chancery suits in which they became involved, many fell victim to the economic bust of the mid-1890s. 

The Pulaski County chancery causes document the years 1841-1912. While the majority of cases involve disputes over land ownership and the settlements of debts, many cases detail the area’s industries and the arrival of the Norfolk & Western Railroad. The 1880s saw the development of several iron and mining industries in Pulaski County, and many of those companies – Pulaski Iron Company, Bertha Zinc Works, Radford Iron Company, Dora Furnace – are represented in chancery causes. Researchers interested in railroad history will find several cases involving the Virginia & Tennessee and Norfolk & Western Railroad Companies. For example, in 1859 the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad was sued by a Pulaski contractor for payment for work performed on sections of the railroad.  Another example came in 1884, when Andrew Boyd and James C. Alexander successfully sued the Norfolk & Western Co. for attempting to lay tracks within fifty feet of their homes (See 1859-006, Pryde & Jones vs. Virginia & Tennessee Railroad Co. and 1884-013, Andrew Boyd, etc. vs. Norfolk & Western Railroad Co.). Land development companies, such as the Pulaski Development Co. and the Pulaski Land and Improvement Co., were formed to take advantage of the incoming railroad and the industrial growth it was expected to bring, but several chancery suits show that these companies found themselves in legal trouble when development plans fell through. Researchers may also be interested in the J. Farmer Physician Ledger, 1867-1898, kept by Pulaski physician Jerry Farmer. The ledger details services performed by Farmer and the purchases of medicines by local residents (See 1884-027, Jerry Farmer vs. Heirs of Elbert S. Trinkle).

The Craig and Pulaski County chancery causes are open and available for research at the LVA. Recent reductions to the Library of Virginia’s budget have slowed the pace of the agency’s digital chancery projects. Once funds become available, the chancery causes will be digitally reformatted and made available through the LVA’s Circuit Court Records Preservation Program. Until then the originals are available to researchers.

- Bari Helms, Local Records Archivist & Sarah Nerney, Senior Local Records Archivist