In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we have reviewed the evidence that is available for Samuel-II Gentry and Nicholas-II Gentry, the second and third sons of Nicholas-I Gentry (the Immigrant). The present article will review both what is known about Nicholas' oldest son, Joseph-II, and what we can conclude about the identity of sons of Nicholas-I younger than Nicholas-II.. Where children of these sons can be clearly identified, they are summarized here. Possible children that are ambiguous or unknown as to relationship and grandchildren will be discussed in later issues of this Journal.
Parish Records - (Continued)
Before considering the identification of sons and grandchildren of Nicholas, it will be convenient to review the remaining St. Paul's Parish records beyond those that have been considered so far. In previous articles we have discussed parish records that relate to Nicholas-I, Samuel-II, and Nicholas-II. Let us now review the vestry book records that relate to other Gentrys, the page number in the reference being given below<1>.
Joseph Gentry Sr.
|(p.32)||1709||Joseph assigned to assist Nicholas in a road maintenance crew.|
|(p.32)||1709||Joseph, together with Nicholas Gentry, included in processioning order for precinct 13.|
|(p.230)||1712||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 25.|
|(p.242)||1716||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 27.|
|(p.263)||1720||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 19|
|(p.89)||1720||Joseph delegated vestry responsibility for support of Sarah Tyler and child; to be repaid.|
|(p.111)||1724||Joseph assigned road maintenance duty with John Jones who was responsible as overseer.|
|(p.278)||1731||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 11.|
|(p.134)||1732||Joseph and William Gentry assigned road maintenance duty with Peter Harroldson's gang.|
|(p.283)||1735||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1.|
|(p.292)||1739||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1.|
|(p.176)||1743||Joseph (identified as Joseph Gentry Sr) assigned to road duty with John Jones' gang.|
|(p.302)||1743||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1.|
|(p.312)||1751||Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1. [In this year, James Gentry first appears in a different precinct (#22), but one which must have been a closely neighboring precinct based on the names of individuals in that precinct compared to family names that in previous years had lived in the same area as Joseph.]|
|The following references have a bearing on judging when Joseph may have died|
|(p.339)||1755||Precinct 1 processioning order, containing almost identically the same members as in 1751, is missing Joseph Gentry.|
|(p.389)||1759||A Joseph Gentry (assumed to be Joseph Jr.) is included along with James Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20.|
|(p.426)||1763||A Joseph Gentry is included along with James Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20.|
William Gentry (the Elder).
|(p.134)||1734||William Gentry assigned ("if he be willing") to join road gang of Peter Harralson that included Joseph Gentry|
|(p.144)||1735||William Gentry added to road gang of Edward Sims|
James, Joseph Jr., David and William Gentry (the Younger)
|(p.321)||1751||James included in processioning order for precinct 22 (note this is a different precinct than that in which Joseph was listed for that same year).|
|(p.363)||1756||There is no processioning return for precinct 22 in 1755 where it would normally be recorded in the vestry book, but in its place is a copy of a case in Hanover County court in which James, as one of the overseeing processioners, appeared in court to represent the vestry in a controversy concerning a boundary line between two land owners in the precinct.|
|(p.389)||1759||James included along with Joseph Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20. In the return James is mentioned as among those lately making land purchases, replacing Alexander Kersey and Joseph Crenshaw from the order.|
|(p.426)||1763||James included along with Joseph Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20.|
|(p.564)||1767||"James Gentry Heirs" included along with Joseph Gentry and David Gentry in processioning order for precinct 21.|
|(p.363)||1756||"James Gentry's Heirs" included with Joseph Gentry and William Gentry in processioning order for precinct 14.|
|(p.487)||1771||"James Gentry dec'd" included in processioning order for precinct 15.|
|(p.524)||1775||[Note. no returns filed for any order in this year, David Gentry assigned to oversee precinct 15.]|
|(p.555)||1779||"James Gentry's Heirs" included with William and Joseph in processioning order for precinct 14.|
|(p.556)||1779||David assigned to oversee processioning and included in return in precinct 15.|
|(p.573)||1784||David assigned to oversee processioning in precinct 15, no returns filed for any precinct.|
|(p.410)||1763||To Mary Spraddling for Keep'g Widdow Cawthon 6 months with a cancer
6 pounds. To George Gentry for keep'g Edy Cawthon from 16th April till now, 5 pounds.|
[Note. Despite the vestry entries for Mary Spradling (widowed in 1733), Widow Cawthon, and George Gentry, the processioning report for precinct 6 in 1763 continued to carry the names John Spradling, James Cawthon and Nicholas Gentry and no mention of George Gentry.]
|(p.494)||1771||George Gentry included in processioning order for precinct 26.|
[Note. In line with other parish precinct changes in this year, precinct 26 replaced the former precinct 6 with most of the members of the latter precinct present in the new precinct.]
Accounting for Gentrys Absent from Parish Records
As we mention George Gentry, this is an appropriate time to discuss and account for the absence from St. Paul's Parish records -- either partially, or entirely -- of several Gentrys. These include:
The first situation that must be considered are the bounds of St. Paul's Parish. In the early days of its existence, the parish was still a part of New Kent County and represented rhe limits of settlement. As people moved farther west, Hanover County was formed and along with that a new parish, St. Martin's Parish. This served the western end of Hanover County, and after Louisa County was divided from Hanover County in 1742, this parish continued to serve a part of that county. The change in parish is significant because the parish records we have available for study today are for St. Paul's Parish which have been remarkably well preserved. Corresponding records for St. Martin's Parish do not exist. Therefore any Gentrys living in the latter parish, west of Stone Horse Creek and the South Anna River, are not included in any church records, but only in other civil and county records. The same situation exists for any Gentrys living on the north side of the Pamunkey / North Anna Rivers who were in St. John's Parish. While county records exist after 1742 for Louisa County, unfortunately Hanover County is singularly void of records due to the courthouse having been burned down in the Revolutionary War and again in the Civil War. Records of land grants do exist because they were a transaction by the Crown and the records were either in Yorktown or in London.
Geography explains the lack of records for Gentrys who did not remain in St. Paul's Parish. There is another complicating factor, however, which we discussed briefly in issue #8 of this journal which was a peculiar set of processioning records involving Nicholas-II Gentry. It could explain the failure of Gentrys being in the records even though they remained in the parish. This peculiarity involves the fact that beginning in 1735 and continuing up to but not including 1771, in the the precinct lying between Stone Horse Creek and Beech Creek in which Nicholas-II was listed, virtually the same land owners were reported year after year for the entire period. This precinct was designated precinct #1 in 1735, and as precinct #6 for the years 1739, 1743, 1755, 1763, and 1767. (In 1751, a processioning order was recorded in the vestry book, but no "return" recorded in the space reserved for that.)
For several of these reports, the processioning "return" included statements similar to that in 1759 (p.380), "In Obedience to the within Order, we the Subscribers have processioned the Lands within mentioned, and Other Adjacent Lands not mentioned in the Order". In each case, the "adjacent lands" were not named, nor in any of these returns was there any indication of the lands, "mentioned in the Order" no longer being correctly identified. This in spite of the fact that a number of irregularities are known to have existed. In particular we know that in 1736 Nicholas-II Gentry moved from St. Paul's Parish to Fredericksville Parish which later became a part of Louisa County. We can only guess at what might have prompted these presumably incomplete reports. The precinct in question was at the far western end of the parish, and thus less subject to parish oversight or involvement. The most likely explanation perhaps, is that the individuals responsible for processioning reports were lackadaisical and unless there was an obvious and distinctive change in the precinct land-holdings, they were content to simply submit the same report year after year without filling in details about boundary or ownership changes.
It is possible that Nicholas continued to be the owner of record during all those years even though he was absent. There is a strong probability that a member of the Gentry family continued to occupy the property, whether or not it was held in Nicholas' name, during that time and the processioners simply neglected to change their quadrennial report. In 1771, when the precinct was newly consituted, George Gentry was finally reported as a land-holder. He is known to have been living in that vicinity from at least 1763 onwards. Indeed George's father and other Gentrys may have lived there before him, from before the time Nicholas left or after.
In studying the parish records it is apparent that Joseph Sr. and James Gentry appear to be older than the others. Joseph appears to have died between 1751 and 1755 and James died between 1763 and 1767. The other names are consistent with being children of these two or a third unnamed Gentry. The use of the term "Joseph Sr." in 1743 and the presence of a Joseph Gentry in the 1759 and succeeding records strongly suggests that the later Joseph was a separate Joseph, a son of Joseph Sr. The older William Gentry clearly is most likely another son of Joseph Sr. As to David and the younger William Gentry, their names do not appear in the vestry records until after James appeared, late in life, and obviously returning after a prolonged absence from the parish. We can confidently assume that they were children of James. The question of George is not quite as clear-cut and will be discussed in the journal article on that family by John Reed.
Tax Records as a Source of Information
After 1779 it is necessary to turn elsewhere than to parish records for information about the Hanover County Gentrys. Two sets of records survive for Hanover County (some of which also apply to parts of Louisa County), both adopted by the new State of Virginia in 1782 at the end of the Revolutionary War. One was a listing of tithables for which state and county poll taxes, and personal property taxes (which included slaves, horses and cattle) were charged. The other was a listing of real estate or land taxes. The earliest records combine these two functions and we find that a James Gentry was taxed for 400 acres in the portion of St. Martin's Parish that was situated in Louisa County (the eastern end of the county, adjoining Hanover County) in 1767, 1768, and 1769<9>. We assume that this was the same James Jr. who was executor for the estate of his father, James Sr. (see below). We don't know if this was land that James Sr. had owned in Louisa County which was inherited by James Jr. or if it was land that James Jr. had acquired separately. This gives us a clue, however, as to where James Sr. was living before he moved back to St. Paul's Parish.
We can benefit most from these tax records in trying to identify the families of James Sr. and Joseph-III. For example, there are multiple references to David Gentry in Hanover County tax lists that begin in 1782. The listing of land taxes for 1782 to 1796 show that David owned 397 acres of land in St. Paul's Parish<11>, while the lists of tithables for the period 1782 to 1815 show him with a substantial number of slaves, horses and cattle<12>. With respect to Joseph, the tithables tax lists are somewhat ambiguous. They mostly list just "Joseph' and do not identify Senior or Junior but they do appear to include a "Joseph Sr" (that is, Joseph-III) for the years 1782, 1783, and 1785, and then another Joseph with less property (Joseph-IV), for the years 1783, 1785, 1786 and onwards. In the same collection of tithables, a Susanna Gentry is listed for 1786 to 1792. The contemporaneous land tax lists for 1782, 1783, 1787, and 1788, show taxes being charged to Joseph for 100 acres of land. Beginning in 1789, the tax was assessed to the "Joseph Gentry estate". It seems certain that Joseph had died by 1786, so the land tax lists for the years 1786 to 1788 probably represent a time when the tax list was simply slow to acknowledge the fact that Joseph had died. From the information given above, we can not only get an estimate of Joseph's death, but also that Susanna appears to be Joseph-III's widow. In the same manner, listings of other Gentrys provide valuable information in identifying them as descendants of Joseph-II and James-II.
A. Joseph-II Gentry, Son of Nicholas-I
All of the vestry entries from 1709 to 1751 are unambiguous in indicating that Joseph Gentry Sr. was alive and active in St. Paul's Parish. The entries for 1759 and 1763 are probably for Joseph Gentry Jr., both because there was an absence of Joseph from the 1755 processioning orders, and also because the 1759 and 1763 entries for a Joseph Gentry are for a different precinct, with different neighbors, than that in which Joseph Sr. had last been listed. While it is possible that Joseph Sr. gave up his land due to old age and moved in with one of his sons (or sons-in-law?), it is more likely that he died in the interval between 1751 and 1755.
As to the date of Joseph's birth, we see that he was assigned parish duties in 1709 that would be appropriate only for individuals who had reached maturity. This would suggest that he was born at least by 1688, and more likely several years earlier. His father, Nicholas, is known to have been occupying and farming land in 1684 that adjoined the land which was granted in that year to his brother Samuel-I (see articles 1 and 3 of this Journal). Nicholas could not marry while he was still an indentured servant, but almost surely was married by 1784 (though probably newly-so), thus we can estimate that Joseph was likely born in about 1784.
Beyond the bare statistics above, and the names of his presumed sons (who will be discussed below), we know nothing of Joseph--not the name of his wife or whether he had more than one wife, nor the size of his family, nor whether he had any slaves. He probably occupied the same parcel of land that was owned by his father (totalling some 250 acres in 1702), which was a very respectable size for that time and place. Joseph was not sufficiently important to be a vestryman, and was not given the duty of being a road overseer, but overall appears to have been a respected and responsible member of his parish.
B. Other Sons of Nicholas-I Gentry
In determining which other Gentrys that are on record in early Virginia records might be children of Nicholas-I, the primary consideration will be the age of the individual. We have concluded above that Joseph was probably born in the vicinity of 1684. Allowing for the normal age of marriage at the time, Joseph was probably married in the interval between about 1705 and 1715. There is an overlap period between 1705 and roughly 1710 when any Gentrys that were born in the parish could have been children of either Joseph or his father, Nicholas. Any children born after the latter date, the approximate date of death of Nicholas, obviously could not have been those of Nicholas.
Existing records include four candidates for Gentrys, known to be living at the time, who may have been sons of either Nicholas or Joseph, namely: William (the Elder), James, Joseph Jr., and John Gentry.
B1. James Gentry
We do not want to limit our searchs for James to Hanover County, however, for there are two references to him in Louisa County Court records that we must mention. The court records for 1768 document a suit by a James Gentry [Jr.] (and others), "executors of the last will and testament of James Gentry [Sr.], deceased"<3b> This was an action to recover payment for a debt allegedly owed James Sr. A year earlier, in 1767, when new members of a road maintenance gang were appointed to replace the "hands belonging to the estate of [blank] Gentry deceased"<3a>. the action unquestionably refers to the late- departed James, and to slaves or other field hands in Louisa County owned by him. Tax lists for the years 1767 to 1769 for the Louisa County section of St. Martin's Parish show a James Gentry taxed for five tithables and 400 acres. It is not clear whether this refers to James Jr. as the new owner of this land, or to the James Gentry Sr. estate. In either case James Sr. must have lived in Louisa County long enough to acquire a sizeable amount of land and a number of slaves, and we can certainly assume that James Jr. must have been a son of James Sr. Moreover since James Jr. had been appointed executor of his father's will, it is probable that he was the latter's oldest son.
We have a different problem in rationalizing James Sr.'s move back to the eastern end of the parish near Totopotomoy Creek to his father's home. We do not know just when that happened or why but it may have been tied in with the death of Joseph and settlement of his estate. There was a gap in processioning orders between 1743 and 1751, so James could have moved back anytime during that interval. James' exact date of death is likewise uncertain, but it was obviously some time between 1763 and 1767.
All of this speaks to the existence of James Gentry and where he was located at different
times in his life but it says nothing about whether he was a son of Nicholas-I or Joseph-II Gentry.
GFA devotes only a single sentence to him (#184);
"Born in Hanover, probably aboout 1710, and is either a son of Nicholas[-I] or Samuel[-I]."
The best clue for his birth lies in estimates of birth for James' children. As we will see, John Reed suggests that George Gentry was born about 1730-1732. James Jr. has been suggested above as being the oldest son of James Sr., hence his date of birth would precede George, let us say about 1728. If James Sr. was about 25 years of age when he married, and considering that Nicholas' youngest daughter, Mabel, was baptized (and presumably born) in 1702, we can count back to a date of about 1704 for his birth. This is strong evidence for James being a son of Nicholas-I and we so conclude.
B2. John Gentry of Louisa, Augusta and Botetourt County
In attempting to complete the identification of sons of Nicholas-I and Joseph-II, we need to consider John Gentry who never appeared in any St. Paul's Parish records. Denny Ellerman was the first to give wide circulation to the theory that a John Gentry who appears in Louisa County records in the 1740's, and a John Gentry who appears after 1758 in Augusta and Botetourt County, Virginia records, and died in 1779 in the latter county were the same person, and that this John may have been a son of Joseph-II<4>.
In 1740, John Gentry was named as an adjoining land owner, in a patent granting land to a John Cosby<5>. While the exact location of this land cannot be identified today, it was in the vicinity of the Little River and Elk Creek, a tributary of the North Anna River. The grant identifies the land as being in Hanover County but that was before Louisa County was divided, and the location described was in an area that later became Louisa County. The fact that this John was old enough to be a land holder indicates that he must have been born before 1719 leaving very few choices other than for John to have been a son of Joseph or a son of Nicholas-I. As to other possibilities, there is no John known to be a son of Nicholas-II, nor would the fact that this John was a land owner as early as 1740 be possible for a son of Nicholas. Samuel-II did indeed probably have a son John, but one who was much younger than this John. The absence of John from any St. Paul's Parish records raises the same questions as to why his presumed brothers James Gentry and David-II Gentry did not appear there. The answer must be variations of the same conclusion, that he left Totopotomoy Creek and either was "hidden" in the Stone Horse Creek processioning for Nicholas-II and/or continued farther west beyond the bounds of the parish.
Before answering the question of parentage, it will be necessary to consider what other information is known about John. Following the land grant reference, John was mentioned in three Louisa County Court orders in connection with road maintenance in his neighborhood: once in 1743 when he was appointed overseer for the road, again in 1744 when he was reimbursed for preparing direction signs, and finally in 1747 when a new overseer was appointed to replace him, apparently after he moved away<6a-c>. John was also cited in court in 1744 for payment of a debt, the same case being continued some nine months later in 1745<6d>.
From Louisa County, John apparently moved south to Amelia County, Virginia, where tax
list and road order references place him between 1747 and 1751. Moving from the eastern
watersheds across the Blue Ridge Mountains into the Shenandoah Valley, John's name next
occurs in an Augusta County Court record of 1758<7>, and then either the same John or
a son, John, later in records in Botetourt County which was split from Augusta County in 1769.
As of the date of this writing, John's parentage is uncertain. He could have been a son of
Nicholas-I. He could also just as well have been a son of Joseph-II. [Note added Nov. 2013 -- an updated and more complete record of John was
published in the Gentry Journal for 2011, issue D in which it is proposed that John was the
youngest son of Nicholas-I.]
What happened to William after 1735? Did he die soon afterwards of accident or illness? Did he move to St. Martin's parish and/or beyond and then die before records for that part of Hanover County and for Louisa County were created? Or did he wind up in a situation where he was living in St. Paul's Parish but was not included in any parish records? In either case, one can expect that he may have had children who survived to appear in various records at a later time, but William himself must have died at a relatively young age. There were a number of Gentrys living in Louisa County in the late 1700's who cannot be clearly identified as to parentage. We have speculated that some of these Gentrys may have been surviving children of William. They will be discussed more in depth in the future.
Joseph Jr. appeared in Hanover County records other than parish records, in particular he was included in tax lists that have been published for the period beginning in 1782. Joseph appeared in the 1782, 1783, 1787 and 1788 land tax lists as a resident of St. Paul's Parish and owner of 100 acres. By this time he was known as Joseph Sr and there are scattered contemporary references to a Joseph Jr, his son. In 1782 also, he was also included in a special state enumeration in which he was identified as having a family consisting of five members present. In 1789, his land was listed under the name "Joseph Gentry estate". The obvious conclusion is that he died probably in 1788. His estate continued to be taxed as such for a number of years until finally in 1800, the tax list has a notation that the estate had been conveyed to Susannah Gentry.
George Gentry, of St. Paul's Parish records, has been suggested as a possible son of James Sr.. As indicated earlier, a review of the information about his family will be published in the Gentry Journal next month, so will not be described further here. If he was indeed a son of James Sr., it is likely that he was younger than James Jr. but older than David. George is included in GFAas #185 in a section labeled "Other Gentrys".
Aaron Gentry was a hypothetical brother of George Gentry. He served as a witness in 1759 for the sale of land in Goochland County by Ralph Crutchfield of St. Paul's Parish, to William Strong of St. Martin's Parish<15>. This implies that Aaron was living at the west end of St. Paul's Parish. George Gentry had a son Aaron, who was born long after the time of this Aaron, but the correspondence of names is very suggestive of a family relationship.
Diana Gentry, was married by the Rev. William Douglas to George "Cothon" (Cawthon) in 1761<16>. She is another hypothetical sibling of George. This is based on the prevalence of Cawthon family members in the precinct where George lived, and the fact that George was assigned by the St. Paul's vestry to care for an Edy Cawthon. In addition, members of the Cawthon family are known to have purchased land not far from Stonehorse Creek in Goochland County.
John Gentry was a probable son of James. Although he did not appear in any parish records with James, there is an appreciable number of other records for him. This includes his presence in the 1782 state enumeration of Hanover County and among those owing land taxes beginning in 1783<11,12>. John will be discussed further in a future Journal article along with a contemporaneous John Gentry of Louisa County.
David Gentry's appearance in St. Paul's Parish records after the return of James-II to the parish argues strongly for his identification as a son of James. The appearance of David Gentry in 1767 as a landowner indicates that (1) he was of age by that time, and thus probably born in the vicinity of say 1740 to 1745; and (2) he must have been a son of either James or Joseph Jr. The former possibility is much the more likely because James, being the older of the two, was the most likely to have had adult children appearing first in the records, and because, like George Gentry, David's first son was named James, and neither had a son named Joseph.
In addition to parish records, there are multiple references to David Gentry in Hanover County tax lists that begin in 1782. He appears to have been very prosperous. The listing of land taxes for 1782 to 1796 show that David owned 397 acres of land in St. Paul's Parish<11>. The lists of tithables for the period 1782 to 1815 show him with as many as nineteen slaves at one time, along with half a dozen horses which were taxed with the slaves<12>. David appears to have died shortly before 1817. A tax record for that year shows a distribution from David's estate to James Gentry Jr., Henry D. Gentry, Bassett Gentry, Elizabeth, Nancy and Susanna Gentry and Matthew Gentry.
A William Gentry was probably among the sons of James. Whether he was the one in processioning orders in 1771 and 1779 is not certain. The William in the parish records was younger than David and certainly far younger than the William we have proposed as a son of Joseph-II. Based on the 1771 record and using the same rationale as for David, we can guess that William was probably born in approximately 1745 to 1748. The question of William's parentage is an unusually complicated one since there appear to have been at least three William's living contemporaneously for a period of time in Hanover County, although only one was included in parish records. We will not attempt to answer the question at this time but defer it to a later article in which a number of other Gentrys, for whom relationships are uncertain, will be analyzed together as a group.
We have discussed here two of the sons of Nicholas the Immigrant, Joseph-II (the oldest) and James-II (one of his youngest children). Many of the descendants of both of these sons remained in Hanover County and Louisa County in contrast to the families of Samuel-II, Nicholas-II, David-II (and John?). Attempts to identify later Gentrys who lived in the area have always been handicapped by the lack of historical records surviving for Hanover County, but in most cases they can be tied back simply by geography to these two sons. We plan to identify and discuss in detail a number of these descendants in future issues of this journal.
|1.|| "The Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish, Hanover County,
Virginia, 1706-1786", transcribed & edited by C.G. Chamberlayne,
publ by The Library Board [of Virginia], Richmond, 1940, reprinted 1973.|
(Page references are given in text)
|2.||"Hanover County, Virginia, Court Records 1733-1735. Deeds, Wills, and Inventories", Rosalie Edith Davis, Manchester, MO, 1979.|
|1735 Jul 1||p.6 James Gentry witnessed deed and bond.|
|3.||"Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1767-1768" and "Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1766-1772" Ruth and Sam Sparacio, The Antietam Press, McLean, VA, 1999|
|(a)||1767 Apr 13||p.29 in 1767-1768 order book|
|". . . hands belonging to the estate of [blank -James?] Gentry deceased" assigned road duty.|
|(b)||1768 Apr 12||p.130 in 1767-1768 order book|
|James Gentry, etc. Executors . . . of James Gentry, decd. . . . Plaintiff - In Debt.|
|1768 Aug 9||p.217 in 1766-1772 order book|
|[James Gentry case continued.]|
|4.||Denny Ellerman, "A Preliminary Hypothesis about John Gentry of Botetourt County, Virginia", "Gentry Family Gazette and Genealogy Exchange", vol 7, p.126-133 (Oct 1989).|
|5.||"Cavaliers and Pioneers, Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants", "Vol IV (1732-1741)", edit. by Hudgins, Denis, publ by Virginia Genealogical Society, Richmond, 1994.|
|1740 Jun 10||p.222 (Patent Book 18, p.693):|
|John Cosby [granted] 3000 ac, Hanover Co. on both sides of Tanfat/Tanfatt fork of the Little Riv.; crossing brs. of the South fork of Elk Cr.; adj . . . John Gentry.|
|6.||"Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1742-1744", edited and compiled by Ruth and Sam Sparacio, The Antietam Press, McLean, VA, 1999|
|(a)||1743 Apr 11||p.17 |
|John Gentry apptd Overseer of the Road|
|(b)||1744 Nov 13||p.100 |
|[Payment] . .To John Gentry for setting up a post of directions.|
|"Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1744-1747"|
|(c)||1747 Jun 23||p.100 |
|Ordered that the Road wherof John Gentry was formerly Surveyor be divided . . .|
|(d)||1744 Oct 22||p.145 |
|Nathaniel Chancey agst. John Gentry - In Case.|
|1745 Jul 23||p.38 |
|Nathaniel Chancey agst John Gentry . . . The Defendant . . . is to be returned at next court.|
|7.||"Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in Virginia", extracted from the Original Court Records of Augusta County, 1745-1800, by Lyman Chalkley, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, 1965|
|1766||Vol I, p.492|
|An Augusta County Court judgment "Christian vs. King," references some type of transaction by a John Gentry in 1758.|
|8.||Chamberlayne Op. cit.|
|1732 Apr 11||p.134 |
|"Order'd that the Tithables of Henry Tyler, Nich'o Madelin, Joseph Gentry, Sarah Archer, and W'm Gentry (if he be willing), be added to Peter Harralson's gang, to assist him in Clearing his road."|
|1735 Oct 18||p.144 |
|"Orderd, that there be added to Edw'd Sims gang, W'm Gentry, Alex'r Kersey and Nich'o Needin."|
|9.||"Louisa County Virginia Tithables and Census 1743 - 1785", edited and compiled by Rosalie Edith Davis, Manchester, Mo., 1988.|
|St. Martin's Parish||tithes - acres|
|p.15||1768||James Gentry Jno Watson||5-400|
|p.20||1769||Gentry, James||6-400||s. Side of South Anna River|
|10.||Davis, Op. cit.|
|p.127||1778||James Gentry||1 tithe|
|11.||"Hanover County, Virginia, Land Tax Books",
compiled and edited by Ruth and Sparacio, The Antietam
Press, McLean, VA, 1997, Book I (1782--1788), Book 2 (1789-1793), Book 3 (1793-1796)|
[Entries re-arranged and consolidated]
|Joseph Gentry St. Paul's Parish|
|Joseph Gentry est St. Paul's Parish|
|David Gentry St. Paul's Parish|
|James Gentry St. Martin's district|
|John Gentry St. Paul's Parish|
|1788||sold land||-66 1/2|
|William Gentry St. Paul's Parish|
|12.||"Hanover County Taxpayers, St. Paul's Parish, 1782-1815", compiled by William Ronald Cocke III, Columbia, VA, 1956 Unless another individual indicated, also taxed for 1 adult (himself).|
|1786||+ Patrick Gentry, a minor||0||2||3|
|1790||+ 1 adult||0||2||-|
|1812||+ 1 adult||0||3||-|
|Joseph Gentry Sr.||1782||1||0||3|
|(Sr. or Jr.?)||1783||0||4||7|
|Joseph Gentry Jr.||1783||0||0||3|
|(Sr. or Jr.?)||1784||0||0||0|
|13.||"Marriages of Louisa County 1766-1815", compiled by Kathleen Booth Williams, 1977, C. J. Carrier Co.|
|1778 Jan 15||James Gentry to Sarah Dickerson||Sur: William Poindexter|
|14.||"Rockingham County North Carolina Will Abstracts 1785-1865", abstracted by Irene B. Webster, Southern Historical Press, Easley, SC, 1984. [Includes box of old wills discovered in 1957 in Rockingham Co. courthouse, that had never been recorded. Photostatic copies bound into a book entitled, "Old Wills Discovered in Office Dated Prior to 1804".]|
|1783 Sep 28||p.6 Probate Feb 1786, County of Guilford, State of North Carolina.|
|Will of James Gentry: to wife Sarah; son Watson Gentry, land in Hanover Co., VA adj William Morris; daughters Nancy and Minny [Mimey].|
|15.||File c6320001.txt, <http://rootsweb.com/~usgenweb>, transcribed by Karen L. Salisbury from Goochland County, Virginia records|
|1759 Sep 6|
|INDENTURE between Ralph Crutchfield and Alce, his wife of the Parish of St. Pauls in the County of Hanover of the one part and William Strong and Frances his wife of St. Martins Parish and County of Hanover aforesaid of the other part, . . . for . . . the sum of eighty five pounds . . . doth hereby . . . sell . . . land . . . in the County of Goochland containing by estimation one hundred and fifteen acres . . . lying on the Branches of Allens Creek in the aforesaid County of Goochland . . . [Wit: William Hawes, Adam Hunter, Aaron Gentry; Signed: Ralph Crutchfield]|
|16.||The Douglas Register", transcribed and edited by W. Mac. Jones, Genealogical Publishing Co., 1977 (reprinted), p.65|
|A. Marriages by William Douglas|
|1761 Mar 22||Gentry, Diana to George Cothan||both in this parish|
© 2013, W.M. Gentry - All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes provided that proper attribution (including author and journal name) is included.