REVOLUTIONARY WAR PENSION APPLICATION - JOHN NEAL HEIRS

Contributed by:  Flo Neal Dickey [flodickey@uswest.net]


************************************************************************
USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE:  These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced 
in any format for profit or presentation by any other organization or 
persons.  Persons or organizations desiring to use this material, must 
obtain the written consent of the contributor, or the legal 
representative of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb 
archivist with proof of this consent. The submitter has given permission 
to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access.

http://www.usgwarchives.net
***********************************************************************


JOHN NEAL
RWS-File 7565

The declaration of A.G. NEAL of Monroe County, State of Mississippi, dated 6th 
May 1853, before Judge W. A. Tucker of the Probate court, declares that he is 45 
years of age, that he is a son of JOHN NEAL deceased who was a revolutionary 
soldier and served in all as much as two years as he believes. That JOHN NEAL 
entered into service from Union District, State of South Carolina, as near as he 
can state in the year 1778 or 1779, (he does not state the date as certain, but 
to the best of his information and belief as he had learn his father the said 
JOHN NEAL say. His superior officers were Col. BRANDON, Col. ROEBUCK, Colonel or 
Gen. MORGAN and Gen. GREEN and he was with them at the battle of the Cowpens; 
(note; which took place 17th January 1781).

He served as a private of dragoons and also on foot, and he also served some 
time as a spy, for the proof of all of which he served infers to the 
revolutionary rolls in the War office and elsewhere for certificates of 
corresponding service has been obtained from the Comptroller Gen. of South 
Carolina, and filed at the Pension office. He says that this same father JOHN 
NEAL died in Monroe County Mississippi 21st day of June 1840. Aged 75 years, (he 
may been a few years older,) that he was an uneducated man and did not know how 
to proceed to secure his pension in consequence of which he died without 
applying for it.

To this declaration Judge TUCKER certifies as follows; "as the said Wm. A. 
Tucker Judge of Probate of said County does hereby declare that it is his 
opinion that the said JOHN NEAL was a revolutionary soldier, and the said Judge 
further certifies that the said JOHN NEAL died in said County on 21st day of 
June 1840 and also that A.G. NEAL, JESSE NEAL and ELIZABETH NEAL, are the only 
surviving children and the legal heirs of said JOHN NEAL."

Certificate of Mrs. ELIZABETH EASTER, dated 56th May 1853. Aged 80 years (she is 
probably 5 or 6 years older). Says she is the sister of JOHN NEAL deceased, that 
he was a soldier in war of the revolution.

Her knowledge of the circumstances of his service grows out of the following 
facts, that she has a distinct recollection of the absence of her brother, the 
said JOHN NEAL, from home during a great portion of the time of the war, and of 
his return home from the campaign and had frequently heard him relate to his 
friends the many dangers, hardships and difficulties of the war he (went?) 
through, so far as he was engaged in it, but particularly had she heard him 
speak of the battle of the Cowpens (17 Jan 1781) when he always spoke in the 
highest (tones?) of his superior officers under whom he served, to wit; Gen. 
GREEN, Col., BRANDON, Col. ROEBUCK and Col. or Gen. MORGAN. That she is a 
citizen of the County of Monroe, State of Mississippi and has been for the last 
twenty years, that her said brother JOHN NEAL died 21st June 1840. That she was 
present at his funeral. Elizabeth EASTER swears also to the identity of the 
children named in the declaration of A.G. NEAL. ---sworn and subscribed before 
Judge W. A. TUCKER.
....................Signed- Elizabeth EASTER.

The Judge then certifies as follows: "I further state that the above named 
Elizabeth EASTER, whose name is subscribed to the above and foregoing affidavit, 
is well known to me, now and has been for the last twenty five or thirty years, 
and from my long acquaintances with her, do hereby certify that I regard her as 
a person of audibility and truth and consider any statement made by her under 
oath entitled to full faith and credit." Given under my hand and seal on this 
the day and year above written. Signed W. A. Tucker, Judge of Probate

Affidavit of PETER COCKERHAM of Monroe Cty, Mississippi, date 5th Jan 1854, says 
he is sixty-seven years old. That he knew the said JOHN NEAL for 48 years, and 
that he believes he was a revolutionary soldier and that he was always so 
respected in his neighborhood, that he often heard him speak of his service; and 
that despondent further states, that he had often heard his father in law, HENRY 
SMITH, (who was himself a revolutionary soldier and a pensioner from Franklin 
Cty, state of Georgia) say that he was well acquainted with JOHN NEAL while in 
the service. Signed, Peter Cockerham
And certified by J.T.S. Cockerham, Justice of Peace.

Affidavit of JAMES DILLINGHAM of Monroe Cty, Miss. date 5th Jan 1854. Says he is 
60 years old, that he was well acquainted with said JOHN NEAL, late of resident 
of said county, that he knew him for thirty years, and he believes him to have 
been a revolutionary solder, and that he was always so respected in his 
neighborhood and believes to have to have been a revolutionary soldier. Sworn & 
subscribed, James DILLINGHAM, certified by J.T. S. COCKERHAM, Justice of Peace. 

Certificates of Clerk of Court to the qualification of magistrates, to all the 
papers perfectly regular. -----
***
Letter from H. C. SPALDING, Attorney:

A.G. NEAL in his letters to me dated 24 March 1853, says his father was a 
Militia soldier in the revolution and served in South Carolina, was under Gen. 
GREEN, and Col. MORGAN, and fought under them at the battle of the Cowpens (17 
Jan 1781) but his captain I don't know, part of his time he served with his 
brother JOSEPH NEAL who commanded a Spy Company. He then refers to the rolls for 
proof service of his father, and says, the rolls or record is all the proof I 
can offer except my father's sister, (ELIZABETH EASTER) who was at that time 
twelve years old, and can testify to his/this ? so. He further says my father 
lost some two or more horses in the service which the records will show. 

Now I beg to call attention to certificate no. 857 and others, from the 
Comptrollers of South Carolina for collaborations of the statements of service 
as a Spy, and of the loss of one horse at least.

Again in his letter to me dated 5th Jan 1854, A.G. NEAL says, his aunt Elizabeth 
EASTER is very old and of failing memory, an consequently could not swear 
positively to the age of her brother JOHN NEAL, not having any record of either 
his or her own age, and consequently she does not know her own age exactly, Sot 
that she may have set her age at less than it really is on her affidavit.

The statement that JOHN NEAL for whose service A.G. NEAL, his son now claims, is 
fully and clearly identified by Comptrollers certificate No. 857 and others as 
the same man mentioned in the declaration as having served as a Spy, and the 
same certificate collaborates the statement of A.G. NEAL in his letters dated 34 
march 1853 as to the loss of a horse or horses. This certificate shows him to 
have been on duty as a Spy from the 12th of January 1779 to the 18th of August 
1779, both days inclusive.

We consider the objections raised in the office letter of 7th April to the 
identity of the soldier here claimed for, with the name in the certificates of 
the Comptroller of South Carolina, is not well taken. We consider it to flimsy 
and objection to require an argument to abut it; the idea of objecting for the 
mere variation of a letter in the spelling of a proper name, is, it seems to us, 
supremely absurd. Every man knows that there are hundreds of proper names which 
admit of being spelled two, three, and four different ways, yet work with the 
same sounds. It is useless to cite cases they are to familiar to every man.

At the period of the revolution it will hardly be reflected by any intelligent 
man of the present day that in the midst of the desolation and convulsions of 
our infant colony struggling almost and against hope through such ? as all know 
they were by that day such punctilious alterations as responds to remote points 
as to insure that JOHN NEAL'S name should not be spelt NEEL, NEIL, NEALE or NOLE 
according to any of which spellings the pronunciation would be exactly the same. 
It is not to be supported that men in the revolutionary struggles, we mean 
privates always wrote their own name in the few words that have been preserved 
in an imperfect (way).

The evidence of Mrs. EASTER, a lady who is certified to be of impeachable 
integrity by Judge Tucker, seems too be treated lightly by the examiner of this 
case, in his letter prepared for the signature of the Commissioners of 7th April 
letters, he says, "the only witness in the case is a woman who from her own 
showing was not more than six or seven years old when the service was rendered, 
and could not at that age know much about military service" Now as to Mrs. 
EASTERS age, it was only stated to the best of her knowledge and belief without 
record. It was the general belief in the family from what had been said by the 
old members, that she was twelve years old when her brother was in the service. 
A. G. NEAL in his letter of 24 March 1853, says his aunt was about twelve years 
old when her brother was in service. When her [this is the last line on this 
page and did not copy-next page starts with, however it would seem the missing 
word is brother] old she was, and it is shown that she has no record of her age, 
and it is also shown that by reason of her great age she is now of failing 
memory, which is strong presumptive evidence that she falls below her real age 
in her affidavit. Certainly if she was twelve years old at the time her brother 
JOHN NEAL was in service, she is a good witness of so memorable an event. The 
words of this same office letter of 7th April 1854, further says, " This case 
can only be argued upon the testimony of those who served with him, or were in a 
position to know of his service." Can it with any reason be expected to find 
witness now living who were old enough to be in military service in 1780? It 
seems preposterous, and it was laid down in the regulations of the Department as 
far back as 27 June 1832 that, "applicants will be required to furnish, as near 
as my be, the same evidence, under act of 1832, as has heretofore been required. 
By the regulations and practice adopted for carrying into effect the Act of 1818 
be, with such relaxations as have from time to time been sanctioned by the 
department, on account of the rapid decease of the survivors of the 
revolutionary army and the consequent difficulty of procuring direct and 
positive testimony in every case." See Mayo v. Houltons compilation of P. Lewis 
(?), page 551.---This was twenty-two years ago, that it was officially admitted 
to be more serviceable to require direct and positive proof because of the 
reasons above stated and yet, now, we are held to the production of evidence by 
living witness who must have been old enough to bear arms 78 years ago!

The Attorney General Richard Rush in his opinion of 6th April 1815, speaking of 
the constitution of certain acts relating to the military establishment; says, " 
unless loose liberality in their interpretation be allowed, it is to be feared 
that the benignant intentions of the law sought be in danger of being curtailed 
or frustrated." See Pension Laws May V. Houlton , pages 328, sec 111 (?). The 
Sincere spirit of Liberality should apply here. See Sec 8, p 560, ibid. Rules of 
evidence 9 July 1836.
See Sec 101, p 567 ibid, Rules of evidence 17 July 1838
See Sec 1 & 2, ibid p 575, Rules of evidence 31 August 1848.

H.C. SPALDING, Atty.

PS. -"It is well settled in this country, that as a general rule of law, 
identity of name is prima facie evidence of personal identity.---And this even 
if there be a variation of the spelling, provided the two names are "idem 
sonantes." For these principles see Jackson vs. Goes. 15, John's reports, 518; 
Jackson vs. King, 5, Cowen, 237; Jackson vs. Cody, 9, Cowen, 1110."

I herewith submit 'letters' marked one to four for Mr. WALDOS' inspection, not 
as positive evidence, but to collaborate what is stated in the evidence and 
argument. Is hardly necessary for us to suggest to Mr. WALDO, that part in 
situation as the declarent in this case, making a declaration after the death of 
the ancestor who was an actor in these service, could not be expected to know 
such particulars as to enable them and state the particulars of service first 
then (?), when it had been collective from the oral declarations and 
observations of the parent in his lifetime with his family and friends.

There is no discrepancies in the declarations and the statements made in the 
correspondence, and where the service is set from at all it is fairly sustained 
and shown to be indirectly truthful by the certificate of the Comptroller. Other 
words which could not be specified have been proven by the certificates of the 
Comptroller also.

It will be seen by the letter marked "4" from the Comptroller that, being 
familiar with the names in which these revolutionary accounts were kept, and 
having the records before him, he expresses his opinion that all the Indents 
from 1837 to 3.6.53, inclusive all relate to the same JNO. NEAL.

His declaration states that JOHN NEAL served on foot, and as private of 
Dragoons, and that he also served some time as a Spy, for the proof of all which 
the declarent offers to the ?

And here we think the rolls have shown the proof clearly. H. C. S.

* * * * * * *