DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
binky
William Blackstone meets Hening's Statutes." It has grown to 54
posts.
Somebody named Colin Withers is going through old law books and
telling me I need to read all of these citations, but it's never
anything relevant. He cites cases without dates, etc. I had to cut
Colin off because he started harassing me at my private email address.
I am willing to discuss the Dale/Skipwith family off-list.
Wibs
be seen in both the newsgroup and in my Inbox. I made the mistake of
replying to binky from my Inbox, rather than the Newsgroup, instead of just
to the newsgroup, so it inadvertently went to his email address as well.
This is the email I sent (the first, and only one), which binky calls
'harrassing'. Judge for yourself:
====================================
You must remember not to confuse wills with testaments.
Wills (devising real property) could not be challenged at this time by
reason of insanity, but testaments (devising personal property) could.
Colin Blanshard Withers
Author: Yorkshire Probate
====================================
Colin
"binky" <bin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:168a5184-3743-4479...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
James Hogg
>I read the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup in Outlook Express, and post can
>be seen in both the newsgroup and in my Inbox. I made the mistake of
>replying to binky from my Inbox, rather than the Newsgroup, instead of just
>to the newsgroup, so it inadvertently went to his email address as well.
>
>This is the email I sent (the first, and only one), which binky calls
>'harrassing'. Judge for yourself:
>
>====================================
>You must remember not to confuse wills with testaments.
>
>Wills (devising real property) could not be challenged at this time by
>reason of insanity, but testaments (devising personal property) could.
>
>Colin Blanshard Withers
>Author: Yorkshire Probate
>====================================
Judging for myself, I would say that when Binky accuses you of
harrassment he is grossly misrepresenting the content of your
email, an action that is yet another example of the Internet
fraud of which he is otherwise so critical.
--
James
binky
“Bee it enacted that all wills and testaments be firme and inviolable,
unles the executors or overseers doe refuse to execute the trust
reposed in them by the testator in which case the court may appoint
others to act according to the will, but if the said will be soe made
that noe person will undertake the managing of the estate, or
education of the orphants according to the tenor of it, then that
estate by appointment of the court shalbe managed according to the
rules sett downe for the ordering the estate of persons intestate….”
This is the law in force governing wills in the colony of VA when
Edward Dale made his will in 1694. This text is taken directly from
the compendium of laws commissioned by the Virginia legislature and
compiled at their direction by William Waller Hening. The only
exception noted is if no one will agree to serve as executor, then the
estate was declared to be intestate, and the court would appount an
administrator. That's how it was.
I don't appreciate being lectured by Colin on English law. To imagine
a VA county court to even remotely approach the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury is ludicrous. In the colony of VA the county was the basic
unit of government. These people did the best they could in a
primitive, and frequently unstable environment (due to threat of
Indian attack). Edward Dale had been a county clerk, a justice, and a
burgess. By the standards of the colony, he WAS a legal expert. But
the House of Buirgesses itself recognized that there would be some
deviations form English practice--it was unavoidable. It was not
unusual for fistfights to erupt in a VA court.
Colin was emailing me about English law, and admitted he DIDN'T KNOW
what the law in VA was. I saw no point in continuing to reply to
emails that didn't address that issue. I don't see how responding to
every item he pulls out of a law book is relevant here.
I'm willing to discuss this line off-list, but I'm not going to get
bogged down in legal references that haven't been shown to have a
bearing on what I'm discussing.
binky
posters on "soc.genealogy.medieval" do not have a competent grounding
in 17th century colonial VA probate and property law. I've posted the
Hening citation 3 or 4 times, and it has yet to penetrate the
consciousness of some of these people.
Here's Colin's statement:
"You must remember not to confuse wills with testaments." What I
pointed out to Colin was that wasn't the way it was handled in the
colony of VA. From that point on, there's been a steady barrage of
posts from Colin, none of which deal with colonial law. By his own
admission to me, he doesn't know anything about colonial VA law, and
yet some posters have seized on his posts as if they're bolts of
lightning from above. Why I don't know--it makes no sense.
VA county courts were far simpler affairs than the law courts of
England. No doubt an English jurist would find the behavior of the
colonists beneath his standards--but it is the VA county court we're
dealing with here, so in the interest of not muddying the waters,
unless Colin has something to contribute to that topic, I remind him
he is just confusing people who don't know any better, and that's
irresponsible.
wjho...@aol.com
you.
The paragraph you cited doesn't say what you believe it says.
That is made clear by its context which is speaking *directly of* who
would execute the will and who would provide for the children and
estate. Period.
It's not speaking of *all* things relative to probate. Just that one
thing.
And in every message you claim you don't want to get bogged down in
this yet again, and then you spout off with ten more messages. What is
the point of that? It's apparent that you won't let this dog lie. Why
should you care what anyone else thinks of your pet theory?
Insulting the very people that you're trying to get to agree with you,
is not a judicious course of action.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 11:55 am
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
Hening 2:92-93 (March 1661/2) contains the following language:
“Bee it enacted that all wills and testaments be firme and inviolable,
unles the executors or overseers doe refuse to execute the trust
reposed in them by the testator in which case the court may appoint
others to act according to the will, but if the said will be soe made
that noe person will undertake the managing of the estate, or
education of the orphants according to the tenor=2
0of it, then that
estate by appointment of the court shalbe managed according to the
rules sett downe for the ordering the estate of persons intestate….”
This is the law in force governing wills in the colony of VA when
Edward Dale made his will in 1694. This text is taken directly from
the compendium of laws commissioned by the Virginia legislature and
compiled at their direction by William Waller Hening. The only
exception noted is if no one will agree to serve as executor, then the
estate was declared to be intestate, and the court would appount an
administrator. That's how it was.
I don't appreciate being lectured by Colin on English law. To imagine
a VA county court to even remotely approach the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury is ludicrous. In the colony of VA the county was the basic
unit of government. These people did the best they could in a
primitive, and frequently unstable environment (due to threat of
Indian attack). Edward Dale had been a county clerk, a justice, and a
burgess. By the standards of the colony, he WAS a legal expert. But
the House of Buirgesses itself recognized that there would be some
deviations form English practice--it was unavoidable. It was not
unusual for fistfights to erupt in a VA court.
Colin was emailing me about English law, and admitted he DIDN'T KNOW
what the law in VA was. I saw no point in continuing to reply to
emails that didn't address that issue.=2
0 I don't see how responding to
every item he pulls out of a law book is relevant here.
I'm willing to discuss this line off-list, but I'm not going to get
bogged down in legal references that haven't been shown to have a
bearing on what I'm discussing.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
body of
the message
binky
"I am no authority on probate law in the US so I cannot comment on
Hening."
I don't know why he's lecturing me on English probate law, but I'm
willing to concede Blackstone is in conflict with other sources. I
don't see the point of the barrage of posts on English probate law,
although I admit it could be useful to those who had ancestors still
residing in England at the time; maybe it's useful in that regard. As
far as its relevance to colonial VA probate law, Hening is the source.
wjho...@aol.com
interpretation of a paragraph, and when people point out flaws in your
argument you not only attack their counter-argument, but attack them in
a personal way.
One would think Jeff, after your years of lurking you would appreciate
that no one appreciates being labeled a liar, a fraud, a hypocrite, an
idiot and so on. Your approach fails. You turn off all the lurkers
who *might* think you were on to something by the way you spout venom
at those who dispute with you.
Colonial Virginia did not institute a brand-new type of common law.
They borrowed, intact, the same common law which had existed in
England. So English common law is very pertinent to what the Virginia
courts would do in a certain situation.
At any rate you keep stating that a child couldn't dispute a will, well
as you know a child couldn't dispute anything. It was their guardian
or next-friend who had to do that for them, at any rate.
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 1:11 pm
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
binky
Believe it or not, I don't care what you think. That law IS the law
of the colony of VA. There's nothing you can do about it. Colin by
his own admission is no authority on US probate law. Didn't you read
what he said?
Are you hoodwinking people with your source on Mary Miller Briggs?
What exactly is that source, because I think it's just an undocumented
application for a scientific study that was rejected. Isn't that true?
Renia
Sorry, sighs of boredom. I thought we'd done the Skipwith-Dale thing to
death a while back? Has anything new surfaced?
Wibs
He also fails to mention that in Hening is the following:
LAWS OF VIRGINIA.
ACT XX.
An act for Law Bookes.
WHEREAS for the better conformity of the pro-
ceedings of the courts of this country to the lavves of
England, it appeares necessary for their better direc-
tion therein, all the former statutes at large and those
made since the beginning of the raigne of his sacred
majestic that now is and a few other approved bookes
of law should be purchased, It is therefore by this
grand assembly and the authority thereof enacted ac-
cordingly that all the aforesaid statute bookes, and
Daltons justice of the peace, and office of a sherriffe,
and Swinburnes book of Wills and Testaments may
be sent for by the auditor for the use of the general!
courts and assembly, to be kept at James Citty, and
paid for out of the two shillings per hogshead ; and
that the like bookes be sent for by some of the com-
missioners of the severall county courts for the use of
the respective counties, and paid for out of the county
lew.
Of course what binky keeps failing to understand when he quotes Hening on
the estates of orphans, is that when it says "all wills and testaments be
firme and inviolable" they are, of course, referring to valid wills. If
there is a legal challenge to the validity of a will, because of, for
example, the mental state of the testator when he made the will, then that
challenge would have to be addressed in the courts (in which, incidently,
they had access to Swinburne, who lays down the grounds upon which such a
challenge could be made).Colin"binky" <bin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36b880a5-6e2d-4970...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
binky
This is a challenge. Are you going to post your proof of parentage of
Mary Miller Briggs or aren't you? You are aware that the impression
you're giving is that there's a problem with this source? Maybe you
think your comments are clever, but you're not fooling anybody. What
needs to surface here is your source, Will. You challenge people
every day for their sources, so isn't it fair your produce yours? If
you have one, great, but shouldn't you produce it?
Colin Withers by his own admission isn't an authority on American
probate practice and can't comment on Hening. I'll be happy to
forward the emails to you. So while Colin's comments may be
interesting to those of you who had ancestors living in England at
that time, I think Colin's just enjoying the attention he's getting
and his posts have no relevance to the topic. I see no reaosn to
respond to Colin's posts since they by hisown admission don't deal
with the topic. Is that a problem?
wjho...@aol.com
for that matter) sprang fully-formed from the minds of the local men
and it didn't. It was the same common law in use in England at the
time.
So your attempt to disparage the authority of Colin's postings fails,
because you keep insisting that only cases in colonial Virginia have
any applicability, and that's simply not so.
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
Will--
-------------------------------
binky
concerning an act dated Oct. 1666 to purchase law books. So what? Do
you think James City and the county courts had no law books? The law
of Virginia allowed variations in English law as pertained to
conditions in the colony.
You do realize that Edward Dale's sanity was never questioned. After
he retired from being county clerk, he was hired as a consultant to
show the new clerk how to run the office.
I used Blackstone as an example because it was the most popular book
of commentaries on English law in the colonies in the later colonial
period and was in use after the Revolution by Abraham Lincoln and
others as a textbook in the use of reason as it applied to the law.
But Blackstone was writing in the 18th century, so the county courts
couldn't have purchased his book in the 17th century. Right? Sir
William Blackstone wasn't alive in the 17th century. His book was a
commentary on English statute and common law to that point. There are
discrepancies in some of his statements with the statements of other
law books. So? What makes you think Swinburne was completely
accurate, either?
I have several problems with this discussion:
1. Colin Withers by his own admission isn't an authority on colonial
VA probate practice.
2. ALL wills probated in VA had to be proved in a county court. The
probate process basically consisted of proving that the will was
indeed the will of the person that wrote it, that it was his last will
and testament (and they weren't separated in VA), and wills usually
contained language in which the testator said he was of "sound mind
and perfect memory," or some stock phrase like that. No one has ever
suggested that Edward Dale's will was defective in any manner. It
flew through probate without a hitch. If anyone was going to make an
allegation that Edward Dale's will should be tossed out due to a
mental defect, William Rogers, not his wife, would have made that
allegation. Elizabeth was not a legal entity. Rogers would have made
the allegation on behalf of his wife, but he still was the person to
do it.
Don't you understand that?
3. The relevance of any of Colin Wither's statements to Edward Dale's
will escapes me. What is the relevance? The idea here seems to be
that ANY will could be challenged on the basis that the testator was
insane before he wrote it, therefore this "twelve pence" clause could
have been for that purpose. But Dale didn't get any waiver at all
from Joseph Harrison, who the guardian of his grandson, so it can't be
for that purpose--under your theory, Harrison could allege Dale was
incompetent to make a will as well. Dale was wide open to such a
charge from Joseph Harrison. Do you see what I'm saying?
The implication here seems to be that testators had to guard against
every conceivable problem possible, but you haven't even demontrated
this was any concern in the case of Edward Dale.
You're on a fishing expedition, and it's obvious.
binky
it wasn't the same in all of England. What you have failed to show is
the applicability of any of Colin's posts (or yours) to the will of
Edward Dale. Do you plan to do that some point? Are yiu just trying
to divert attention away from your problem with Mary Miller Briggs?
Who said the law sprang out of nowhere?
wjho...@aol.com
Probate practice is not relevant.
He is an expert on probate common law, during this period of time.
Virginia operated under the same common law precedents as England did.
Except a *few* brand-new precedents that they themselves had created
recently.
Do you see that?
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
-------------------------------
wjho...@aol.com
in England. That however does not mean that they were completely
incompatible. Of course as law progresses, new precedents are created
and applied in particular cases, and old ones might be ignored.
However you're operating as if, previous precedents, simply because
they occurred in England, are not relevant and that simply is not the
situation. English precedents were used to determine cases.
Law books seeks to summarize the situation in order for law clerks to
learn to become lawyers. That does not mean that they encapsulate the
entirely of the "law", or even accurately. Only that they try to do
that. You are focused on one particular issue, ignoring the wider
situation.
The law books do not create laws, they try to show what they are, or
what the general situation was.
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
-------------------------------
binky
The fact that county courts had some law books doesn't mean the law
governing wills passed in 1661/2 didn't mean what it said. Swinburne
was the book they bought. It doesn't mean they slavishly followed
everything in Swinburne. The colonists were Englishmen and the laws
they passed reflected that. You're suggesting these people couldn't
pass their own laws, and that's ridiculous. Colin Withers may be an
expert on English probate law, but by his own admission he's not an
expert in American probate law. Are we now turning over all questions
of colonial probate law to Colin? I don't know why you think this
discussion is relevant, but I do know questions have been raised about
YOUR sources, and you're attempting to deflect those questions by
trying to prove me wrong.
Let's look at this law again:
Hening 2:92-93 (March 1661/2) contains the following language:
“Bee it enacted that all wills and testaments be firme and
inviolable,
unles the executors or overseers doe refuse to execute the trust
reposed in them by the testator in which case the court may appoint
others to act according to the will, but if the said will be soe made
that noe person will undertake the managing of the estate, or
education of the orphants according to the tenor of it, then that
estate by appointment of the court shalbe managed according to the
rules sett downe for the ordering the estate of persons intestate….”
This law applies to a will which has been "proved." ALL wills had to
be "proved" in a county court. OK? The witnesses have come into
court and testified that the will was truly that of the person who
wrote it. It's at this point any problems with the will would be
addressed. If there were no problems, the will was considered
"proved." It's now cleared for probate and can no longer be
challenged. In order to be probated, the will had to have an
executor. The law is saying that if ultimatley no executor can be
found, then the estate will be considered an intestate estate, and the
court will appoint an administrator. That's the meanong of this law.
That's the way wills were handled in the county courts of colonial
VA. That's the way it was done here.
Again, I don't see what Colin's observations have to do with Edward
Dale's will. Dale had been a justice for 15 years trying cases in the
Lancaster Co. court. Are you and Colin suggesting he didn't know how
to draft a will? Dale himself had seen Swinburne. So what?
wjho...@aol.com
that the probate law of Virginia as you like to call it, is based on
the same common law that England had at the same time. Virginia did
not create new laws just for Virginia. They took the common law which
was in existence at the time.
You keep repeating the below paragraph without understanding it. Let
me ask you a question. Notice that the paragraph below does *not* make
the distinction that you add between a will and it's proof or an attack
on it at the moment it's proven, etc. That is a layer that you are
adding to what it says. So since you have opened that door, let me add
another layer. If a will is "firm and inviolable" than how is it, that
many wills, prior to the date of that paragraph, were set aside ?
You claim that it is because at the moment of proving the will,
something occurred which made the will not valid. But as you can see,
that paragraph does not say anything at all about that does it? That
should be the first clue, that you have gotten one aspect of the
situation and are running wild with it, without understanding the full
situation.
Quote the portion where he discusses how wills can be set aside at the
moment of proving them.
If you cannot find that section, that should indicate something to you.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <
bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:20 am
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
Will--
The fact that county courts had some law books doesn't mean the law
governing wills passed in 1661/2 didn't mean what it said. Swinburne
was the book they bought. It doesn't mean they slavishly followed
everything in Swinburne. The colonists were Englishmen and the laws
they passed reflected that. You're suggesting these people couldn't
pass their own laws, and that's ridiculous. Colin Withers may be an
expert on English probate law, but by his own admission he's not an
expert in American probate law. Are we now turning over all questions
of colonial probate law to Colin? I don't know why you think this
discussion is relevant, but I do know questions have been raised about
YOUR sources, and you're attempting to deflect those questions by
trying to prove me wrong.
Let's look at this law again:
Hening 2:92-93 (March 1661/2) contains the following language:
“Bee it enacted that all wills and testaments be firme and
inviolable,
unles the executors or overseers doe refuse to execute the trust
reposed in them by the testator in which case the court may appoint
others to act according to the will, but if the said will be soe made
that noe person will undertake the managing of the estate, or
education of the orphants according to the tenor of it, then that
estate by appointment of20the court shalbe managed according to the
rules sett downe for the ordering the estate of persons intestate….”
This law applies to a will which has been "proved." ALL wills had to
be "proved" in a county court. OK? The witnesses have come into
court and testified that the will was truly that of the person who
wrote it. It's at this point any problems with the will would be
addressed. If there were no problems, the will was considered
"proved." It's now cleared for probate and can no longer be
challenged. In order to be probated, the will had to have an
executor. The law is saying that if ultimatley no executor can be
found, then the estate will be considered an intestate estate, and the
court will appoint an administrator. That's the meanong of this law.
That's the way wills were handled in the county courts of colonial
VA. That's the way it was done here.
Again, I don't see what Colin's observations have to do with Edward
Dale's will. Dale had been a justice for 15 years trying cases in the
Lancaster Co. court. Are you and Colin suggesting he didn't know how
to draft a will? Dale himself had seen Swinburne. So what?
-------------------------------
binky
here's a website which can serve as a useful introduction:
It's necessary to know what laws were in effect, and in what
jurisdiction, to understand what a legal document means. This website
can't answer all of those questions, but it can give you basic
principles.
binky
law in Hening, that's the law the colonists followed.
ALL wills had to be "proved.' A will that was "proved" was considered
to be a valid will. After a will was proved it couldn't be
challenged. Why is that a problem?
The process of "proving" a will began when the witnesses to the will
presented it in court and swore oaths that the will presented was the
will made by the testator. Any objections to the will would be heard
at this point. If there were no objections to the will, it was
cleared for probate and could no longer be challenged. The whole
point of "proving a will" is to see if it's valid. Right?
Will says:
"We're never going to reach a meeting point until you can understand
that the probate law of Virginia as you like to call it, is based on
the same common law that England had at the same time. Virginia did
not create new laws just for Virginia. They took the common law
which
was in existence at the time."
That is a false statement. If there is a statute in Hening, legally
it took precedence over the common law of England. The common law of
England was largely uncodified and malleable. Therefore, anything
Colin or anyone else has to say about the common law is inoperable if
there's a statute in Hening covering the subject. If there's no
statute, then the common law was largely followed.
Will, you don't understand the subject; you're harsssing me hoping to
get out of the Mary Miller Briggs mess you're in. What you want to do
is outlast me and hope that the posts on Mary Miller Briggs are just
forgotten.
wjho...@aol.com
all.
You have yet to cite a "statute", that is, a law passed by an assembly
(dated). You've been citing something Hening states, but that is not
the same thing as a law.
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:37 am
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
Will says:
-------------------------------
binky
Hening 2:92-93 (March 1661/2) contains the following language:
“Bee it enacted that all wills and testaments be firme and
inviolable, unles the executors or overseers doe refuse to execute the
trust
reposed in them by the testator in which case the court may appoint
others to act according to the will, but if the said will be soe made
that noe person will undertake the managing of the estate, or
education of the orphants according to the tenor of it, then that
estate by appointment of the court shalbe managed according to the
rules sett downe for the ordering the estate of persons intestate….”
Do you see the words, "Bee it enacted."? That means it's a statute,
Will. And yeah, it takes precedence over English common law. The
reason I'm quoting it over and over again is because you're
misrepresenting it over and over again. It's the law. You keep saying
I haven't quoted a law, but I've been quoting a law over and over
again, and you keep coming up with BS.
Renia
> The laws of Virginia are set out in Hening's Statutes. If there is a
> law in Hening, that's the law the colonists followed.
>
> ALL wills had to be "proved.' A will that was "proved" was considered
> to be a valid will. After a will was proved it couldn't be
> challenged. Why is that a problem?
>
> The process of "proving" a will began when the witnesses to the will
> presented it in court and swore oaths that the will presented was the
> will made by the testator. Any objections to the will would be heard
> at this point. If there were no objections to the will, it was
> cleared for probate and could no longer be challenged. The whole
> point of "proving a will" is to see if it's valid. Right?
>
> Will says:
>
> "We're never going to reach a meeting point until you can understand
> that the probate law of Virginia as you like to call it, is based on
> the same common law that England had at the same time. Virginia did
> not create new laws just for Virginia. They took the common law
> which
> was in existence at the time."
>
> That is a false statement. If there is a statute in Hening, legally
> it took precedence over the common law of England. The common law of
> England was largely uncodified and malleable.
English law was more than 1,000 years old when the Dales and Skipwiths
were doing their thing. Alfred the Great went to great pains to get
English law written down in the 9th century. Thereafter, lawyers could
consult the written law for their precedents. If there were no
precedents, the judiciary could analyse the case and make their
judgements and that new precedent would be written down. The English
Parliament is the highest law court in the land and it, too, has the
power to amend old laws and make new ones, all of which are written down.
In no way has English law been malleable for more than 1,000 years.
English Law is the Constitution of our land, which is why we don't need
a written one.
English law was taken to the colonies, including America, after which
the various colonies amended English law where it would be more relevant
to their particular circumstances. As each colony gained its
independence, so they dealt with their laws independently.
It's important to remember that 17th century Virginia was an English
colony with English laws adapted to local and special circumstances.
binky
that the intellectual foundations of colonial law were the laws of
England. But when the Assembly of Virginia passed a law, that was the
law in the colony of Virginia and that is the law the colonists
folllowed, not English common law. Those laws were compiled by William
Waller Hening on orders from the Virginia legislature. If there was
no Statute on the topic, then generally they followed English common
law. That's how it was. I don't approve of the way Sjostrom and "Let
It Fly" treated you, but I fail to see how your comments are germane
to this thread. This thread isn't about English common law. It's
about probate practice in 17th century Virginia.
There were laws on the books that governed colonial probate practice.
Colonial probate practice was simpler than English practice. When
someone who made a will died, the witnesses to the will brought it
into court to be "proved." The question the court had is this: was
it a valid will? The witnesses took an oath that the will really was
the last will and testament of the deceased. If there were any
questions about the validity of the will, this was the time to voice
them.
If the will was "proved," it was cleared for probate and could no
longer be challenged. At this point, the only way it could be set
aside is if no one would serve as the will's executor. In that case,
the court declared the will void and the estate became an intestate
estate, and an administrator was appointed.
This is the way it was done in the colony of Virginia. If it was done
differently elsewhere, I don't see the relevance to this topic.
Renia
> I'm well aware that Virginia was an English colony. I'm not denying
> that the intellectual foundations of colonial law were the laws of
> England. But when the Assembly of Virginia passed a law, that was the
> law in the colony of Virginia and that is the law the colonists
> folllowed, not English common law. Those laws were compiled by William
> Waller Hening on orders from the Virginia legislature. If there was
> no Statute on the topic, then generally they followed English common
> law. That's how it was. I don't approve of the way Sjostrom and "Let
> It Fly" treated you, but I fail to see how your comments are germane
> to this thread. This thread isn't about English common law. It's
> about probate practice in 17th century Virginia.
Indeed it is but I'm saying that 17th century probate practice in
Virginia wasn't so different from that in England.
If you have a specific Virginian probabate law in mind, then refer us to
it, not generalise about Hening.
w
> Will - You have no comprehension at all of this topic.
> You are without a doubt the dumbest person I've ever met. The
> citation is at the beginning of the law, you idiot.
Well, Will Johnson read it for yourself from another professional
genealogist and brilliant famous lawyer who points out that you
have *no comprehension* of things your pretend to read and
pretend to write about. Agreed, you are "the dumbest
person" he has ever met, because it is true as your dumb and idiot-
written
web pages full of errors, lack of sources and statements of ancestors
in AT that any layman can tell the dates and places do not match.
Yes, you are an idiot.
meep, meep
Wily Coyote, alter ego to Will Johnson
*****
binky
Let it go. I've quoted the specific probate law many times. I'm
beginning to think Sjostrom and "Let It Fly" weren't so off after
all. Please?
Renia
Excuse me, but many people have asked YOU to let it go. So, let it go.
Please.
wjho...@aol.com
statute isn't it?
I suppose you didn't realize that Hening was online so we could see
that it starts by stating "concerning orphans estate be it enacted...."
This section deals with how to execute estates where there are living
orphans who must have periodic reports produced on the estate until
they are either married or adults. I'm sure you can see, that this is
not a general statute on all probate.
-----Original Message-----
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 4:15 am
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
-------------------------------
tish
> It's sort of interesting that you leave off the first few words of this
> statute isn't it?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
> To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
> Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 4:15 am
> Subject: Re: DISCUSSION OF DALE/SKIPWITH LINE
>
> Here it is again, Will:
>
> Hening 2:92-93 (March 1661/2) contains the following language:
>
> “Bee it enacted that all wills and testaments be firme and
> inviolable, unles the executors or overseers doe refuse to execute the
> trust
> reposed in them by the testator in which case the court may appoint
> others to act according to the will, but if the said will be soe made
> that noe person will undertake the managing of the estate, or
> education of the orphants according to the tenor of it, then that
> estate by appointment of the court shalbe managed according to the
> rules sett downe for the ordering the estate of persons intestate….”
>
> Do you see the words, "Bee it enacted."? That means it's a statute,
> Will. And yeah,
> it takes precedence over English common law. The
> reason I'm quoting it over and over again is because you're
> misrepresenting it over and over again. It's the law. You keep saying
> I haven't quoted a law, but I've been quoting a law over and over
> again, and you keep coming up with BS.
>
Yes, Will Johnson, self-proclaimed biographer (really blogger)
and self-proclaimed genealogist (really salesman of fake ATs)
Anyone can read that his ATs on his web pages have no sources
and are error-prone even when other legitimate genealogists,
such as Bill Arnold, post to Gen-Med the facts and he still refuses
to correct them
Instead, Will Johnson plays sock puppet games with his various
troll posts and challenges others in a duet of words, meaningless,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, to quote the Bard
*****
Recently Will Johnson, self-proclaimed claimed genealogist, took to
task a member for unprofessionalism and did his by now boring (Hint,
Hint) that the member should do their own work and he would not
assist
further. Well, Will Johnson expresses thanks to others in his
erroneously researched bio on me on his web pages: which he has
touted
on Gen-Med. To set the record straight, members may go to Rootsweb
Arnold-L for my updated AT. Will Johnson may correct his false and
misleading web pages and maybe gain a tad of respect from me.
Bill Arnold
billarnoldflor...@gmail.com
*****
[begin Will Johnson’s web pages on me]
William Arnold
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/William_Arnold
George William Arnold, Jr, (b Feb 1938), author, journalist and
retired English professor
[edit all below: Bill Arnold was never on the staff of Case Western
Reserve University, in fact: never even been in the state of Ohio]
Thanks to John Brandon, and Nat Taylor who assisted in gathering some
of these details.
He is not to be confused with another author, also named Bill J
Arnold
(born Aug 1944), who has writen at least two books "Make them happy/
make them pay", and "Common Sense Success" and has an entry"Bill
Arnold" on the website "World Class Speakers and Entertainers".
George William "Bill" Arnold was born Feb 1938 in St Petersburg,
Pinellas County, Florida. He attended the University of
Massachusetts,
graduating in 1964, and receiving his M.A. in Creative Writing from
the University of Massachusetts
[edit out the silly word “evidently”: get your facts straight, Will]
(evidently in 1967 ?). He served in the USAF, stationed in Puerto
Rico. He later became a college professor of English in Massachusetts
and Florida, and a Copy Editor for many publications, as well as a
journalist, most notably for the National Enquirer. He is now, or was
at one time "Professor of English" at Palm Beach Community College.
He
was also possibly either on the staff of Case Western Reserve
University, or they hosted the Emily Dickinson website, as this now-
defunct URL affixed to the end of an old message of his from 2004
attests http://www.case.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm While here
he discusses his book on Shakespeare possible contributions to the
King James bible, and cites a URL (now defunct) to an article in the
Toronto Star 16 Jan 2004
Bill Arnold is currently retired and lives in West Palm Beach (or
vicinity), Florida (as of 2007).
Works
• Emily Dickinson's Secret Love : Mystery "Master" Behind
Poems, PPB
Press, Lake Worth, Florida, 1998, ISBN 1892582007 OCLC 39371113
• Some reviews at Amazon
• Jesus: The Gospel According to Will, West Palm Beach:
PPB Press.
2002. First Edition. Softcover. 8vo; lxvi + 179 pages. ISBN
1892582015
OCLC 59011569
• Lake Osborne History : A Monograph, PPB Press, West Palm
Beach,
Florida, 2005. (privately printed, no ISBN)
Primary Sources for 1
• "Bill Arnold" on Emily Dickinson Org website stating :
"Retired
Professor of Classics, Adjunct Professor of English, Independent
Scholar, Biographer, Literary Critic, Freelance Writer ... West Palm
Beach, FL"
• "Book Marks" at UMASS magazine, by Linda C Smith, Fall
2006
stating : "Bill Arnold ’64 ’67G [i.e. graduated in the Class of 64,
and 67 as a Graduate student ?] is the author of three books, Emily
Dickinson’s Secret Love: Mystery “Master” Behind Poems; Jesus: The
Gospel According to Will: Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done, and
Lake
Osborne History. He lives in West Palm Beach, Florida.
• The Coastal Observer (Lake Worth, Florida), 31 Mar 2005
"Arnold
Still Setting Record Straight", by Leonard Saffir : "...Bill Arnold
of
Lake Worth...now 66....This self-described writer, poet, author,
journalist, reported, researcher, stringer, photographer, scholar,
free lance writer and teacher of English comp at assorted learning
institutions... Arnold bought his lakeside home in 1990.... Arnold
was
born in 1938 in St Petersburg....He was a professor of English at
Amherst and Palm Beach Community College.... From 1983-89 he was a
reporter-freelancer for the National Enquirer, when it was
headquarterd in Lantana." [includes a picture of Bill Arnold]
• 1930 Census of St Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida
showing :
"George E Arnold 44, Mattie A 37; Thomas E 19; George W 14"
*******
[edit all below]
• Social Security Death Index showing : "George Arnold,
born 27 Mar
1916, died Nov 1982, issued by Indiana, last residence Saint
Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida"
• Florida Death Index, 1877-1998 showing : "George M
Arnold, died 18
Nov 1982, Pinellas County, born 27 Mar 1916"
• POSSIBLY the same person as Florida Marriage Collection
showing :
"George W Arnold married Mildred O'Neill, 1937, Pinellas County"
• Social Security Death Index showing : "William Arnold,
born 23 Aug
1886, died Mar 1969, last residence Saint Petersburg, Pinellas
County,
Florida"
• Florida Death Index, 1877-1998 showing : "William George
Arnold,
died Mar 1969, Pinellas County, Florida"
Further reading
• A posting by Bill on Shaksper.net where he speaks about
his book
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2004/0137.html
• A posting by Bill about his theories about Sunspot
cycles
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cyclesi/message/3860
[edit]
http://http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SunspotWeatherPlanetaryCycles/
[end of Will Johnson’s web pages on me]
tish
> statute isn't it?
I got a private email by a reputable professional genealogist,
certainly not Will Johnson, who pointed out that his web pages
on Bill Arnold contain so many errors as to be laughable,
including the fact the ancestral research is wrong, for instance,
his parents never lived in Indiana and census records of the
Arnold clearly show that Will Johnson is an incompetent fool