Difference between revisions of ".MzU0NTE.MTIzOTU2"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
     This deponent having been first sworn according to law deposeth and saith -  
 
     This deponent having been first sworn according to law deposeth and saith -  
 
Question by the Defendant Peters:  Did you know this boy Edmund who is the subject of this controversy?  If so state when you knew him and what was his health?
 
Question by the Defendant Peters:  Did you know this boy Edmund who is the subject of this controversy?  If so state when you knew him and what was his health?
 +
Answer.  I moved to Doct Peters in the fall 1829 and was [illegible] Edmund as overseer until the fall 1831, when I left the employ of Doct Peters.  I frequently saw him whilst Mr. Proffitt was overseer and which he was at New Market in 1832.

Revision as of 15:32, 17 January 2022

The deposition of Rowland M Richardson of lawful age taken at the Tavern house of Nathan C. Anderson in the Town of New Market in the County of Nelson State of Virginia to be read as evidence on the trial of a Suit now depending now undetermined in the Circuit Superior Court of law and chancery for the County of Amherst wherein William J Isbell, Maurice H. Garland Administrator with the will annexed of Christopher Isbell deceased and Robert Isbell as Plaintiffs and Elisha Peters and others are defendants.

    This deponent having been first sworn according to law deposeth and saith - 

Question by the Defendant Peters: Did you know this boy Edmund who is the subject of this controversy? If so state when you knew him and what was his health? Answer. I moved to Doct Peters in the fall 1829 and was [illegible] Edmund as overseer until the fall 1831, when I left the employ of Doct Peters. I frequently saw him whilst Mr. Proffitt was overseer and which he was at New Market in 1832.