Court Records Northumberland County Court Case: Hulet Smith vs. Augustus and John Huey Shamokin Twp, Northumberland County, PA Contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by Joan Berkey USGENWEB NOTICE: Printing this file by non-commercial individuals and libraries is encouraged, as long as all notices and submitter information is included. Any other use, including copying files to other sites requires permission from the submitters PRIOR to uploading to any other sites. We encourage links to the state and county table of contents. Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas EJECTMENT No. 51, November 1840 Session Issued October 26, 1840 Defendant plead not guilty HULET SMITH vs. AUGUSTUS HUEY & JOHN HUEY For nine acres or thereabouts, adjoining lands of the defendants on the North and the plaintiffs on the south, east, and west in Shamokin Township For the Plaintiff, January 11, 1845 [testimony] William Campbell: I was acquainted with the plaintiff before and since he was on the land. I cannot say when he came on this land. I have a note here for some work done between 1817 and 1819. He was on the land in dispute between those two years. He was living on the land with his family. There was a house on it, which he ______ to build, I can’t say whether he lived in the house when it was first built. He has lived on the land ever since. He cleared land on it. How much I do not know. The land has been cultivated and farmed, I can’t tell how many acres. Quincy Wilson lived on this land at the same time that Hulet Smith. Smiths is now living in the same house that Mitchell occupied. The house Smith at first lived in is down. Mitchell is dead some time, can’t say how long. Smith went into Mitchell’s house soon after Mitchell died--James Mitchell was married to Smith’s mother. James Reeder: I was at a raising of a house that I understand was raised for James Mitchell. It was over 24 years ago--James Mitchell an old Revolutionary soldier lived in it. Hulet Smith lives in it now. The house that Smith did live in was put up after ____ Mitchell[‘s] was put up. I saw that house up 24 years ago. Hulet Smith has lived in that place ever since 24 years ago. The 1st house that was built by Mitchell, Hulet Smith now lives in. Mitchell has been dead 7 or 8 years. I don’t know how much land is cleared, 5 or 6 acres I suppose. George Fox: I have known the place where Mr. Smith lives about 25 years. I know nothing about putting up the house. Smith lives in that house. In the fall of 25 years ago, September 8--I was married--that same fall I went to Smith to get my shoemaking &c. Smith has been there ever since. Smith now occupies the house that Mitchell lived in. The two houses are 150 yards apart. It was cleared around the house. I called on him for the taxes as supervisor often. He paid taxes for land. Henry Lewis: I was present when the house was put up 26 years ago next April. The first house that was put on the land--Isaac Mitchell got it put up. He was the old soldier. H. Smith worked at the house. He got the timber and I helped put up the house. I was along when Hulet Smith marked the lines round this land. It is about 26 years ago--Mitchell moved in the house when it was built & Smith with him, he afterwards built his own house and moved in it. The same year Smith built his own house. Smith has lived there ever since. Mitchell died 8 or 9 years ago--Smith lives in the house now where the old man lived (Mitchell) I live in the house last built. Hulet Smith is my father-in-law, I came on the same way he did. I pay him no rent. Next April will be 26 years since I began to live there. The house is within the line marked. I have [possession?] of about 3 acres cleared myself. I suppose Plff [plaintiff?] has it in bounds. The old man Smith has about 5 acres cleared. I never knew Huey ___ in possession of my piece or my father in law’s piece of 5 acres. He wanted it all once--about 23 years ago-- None cleared since Mitchell died, except what I cleared, maybe about an acre. I cleared some a few years before Mitchell died. Nobody but Smith & myself were along when the marks were made. I can’t tell how many marks were made. He marked them with an ax--for a line, Blazes & notches where he made his corner. The lines were blazed--I think he took in upwards of 60 acres. No line marked between me and him, no fence. It is all included in one fence--the clearings are all in one fence. By plaintiff: Huey has land included within the lines Smith made--7 or 8 acres have been cleared by Huey within these lines. It must be 20 years since Huey cleared these 7 or 8 acres. This was cleared at the time Huey claimed the whole. That was 23 years ago. This clearing 23 years ago was toward the East. He first cleared about 4 acres. He made his clearing afterward about 1 year. The line made by Smith was above some of these clearings of Huey. David Rockafeller: The first time I was there was July 13, 1839. I was called to Mr. Smith’s--He had been at my house. I went there at his instance & that of Mr. Daniel [Noses?] his lines and dates. ______ I went off in a northern direction from his house to a chestnut sapling that he said was his corner. I cut in it & blocked it. It counted 22 years. No. 1 block--I went south eastern direction, cut into a pine sapling blazed on two sides--took a block out. No. 2. It counted 22 years. We then returned to the chestnut corner & went in a westerly direction, blocked a chestnut oak line tree counted 22 years. Made no further ext [?] then. Went there again 14 Aug. 1840. I commenced at the Chestnut corner No. 1. I ran S47E, 8 1/2 per to a pine sampling counting 22 years. Then S68E 6 per to a pine corner. An old corner of 1794, then south eastern or eastern direction went to a w OK stump [white oak stump?] for Smith claimed as a line tree. Went on same direction 183 per, from the pine corner found no line trees. At about 150 per found chestnut oak marked in 1818 counted 22 years. We found a post corner, a chestnut post that had fell down. A pointer counted 22 years. About 30 per beyond the chest. oak on the line--We then returned to the place of beginning. Chestnut corner. We ran S82W at 32 per for new clearing at 48 per end of new clearing. This was Huey’s clearing. At 10 per from chestnut blocked maple 22 years. At 15 per further, blocked dead chestnut oak marked as a line tree--at 49 per chestnut oak stump--Smith claimed was a line tree, it was aside of Huey’s fence. Ran S74W 35 per along Huey’s fence to a line of [Mrs.?] Kellys land (Chestnut Oak) not marked. We ran S28E 58 per by Kelly’s land to a post corner in line of Wilkinson’s land, then I adopted the lines of Wilkinson, Campbell and Zopher [Soper?] as the bounds of Smith’s claim. I made a draft of Smith’s claim. This is it--the whole land claimed by Mr. Smith is 40 acres 65 per--This is the draft. The part stained red is Smith’s clearing. The green represents Huey’s clearing of 1839 in brush fence. Yellow is Huey’s clearing of 1840 not fenced. 2 1/2 acres of Huey in side of fence not cleared 3 1/2 of Huey’s 1839 brush fence one side 2 1/2 of Huey’s cleared but not fenced _____ 8 1/2 acres--These clearings are within the lines I ran for Smith. These are new clearings. The chestnut corner was a pretty good imitation of a surveyor’s mark. The other marks did not appear to have been made by a surveyor. The chestnut corner was marked with 3 notches on 4 sides, the other trees are blazed. Writ of Ejectment and Return received. pre...... PLAINTIFF A. Jordon _____ for defendant All the land outside of the fences of Mr. Smith & Mr. Mitchell is claimed by A. Huey. He had a right to 400 acres. 8 March 1793: Warrant to Henry Staybrook for 300 acres adjg & c in Augusta Township 18 August 1797 Returned for Patenting 3 October 1793 Survey 291 1/2 acres to Henry Staybrook in Shamokin Township. John Campbell: The first knowledge I have of this land, it was in possession of the Farnsworth family in 1809. They remained there some 2 years. John Weiner [?] went into possession of it the fall after Farnsworth left it. & Huey went in the next spring. Augustus Huey has been in possession ever since. Their son is on it yet. John Huey--Augustus is off about 2 years. His son is still there. I knew James Mitchell & when he went on this land. I knew him before he went there. Mitchell had the warrant on this land instead of some other land, that he could not get. Mitchell claimed about 4 or 5 acres of land under that survey. Hulet Smith never claimed any to my knowledge except under Mitchell. In 1818 Mitchell told me about taking out the warrant and getting it laid. Mitchell told me that if Smith would help him to build a house he would give him the privilege of an acre to build on. I never knew anything about Huey’s claim till he got it surveyed. We cleared a good deal of land on the Staybrook tract. It was run for Huey by Rockafeller some years back. Huey claimed a settlement right on the Staybrook tract. When he settled on it he did not know whose it was. When it came out that it was surveyed land, there was a rookery about it. He hunted the owner to buy it of him but never found him. Mitchell’s clearing was on the south side of the tract. I had the conversation with Mr. Mitchell when he went on the land, when he hauled the logs there in 1818. I helped haul them. I never saw the lines of Smith’s present claim. My daughter married the son of Mr. Augustus Huey. My daughter lives on this land. My memory is good. I don’t think it has failed. Mitchell gave up the Warrant. David Rockafeller: I have run the lines of the Staybrook survey. I found them on the ground. The improvement of Mr. Smith is on the SW corner (calls for a post) adj. [adjoining?] the surveys of John Kidd & Margt Miller. The southern boundary of the diagram is the southern boundary of Staybrook. I surveyed this Staybrook tract for Huey in 1832, 3, or 4. That was the 1st time I ran it. 1814 assessment Augustus Huey, Shamokin 200a 1832 “ Do. 200a 1832 “ Hulet Smith, laborer occup. 6a “ “ James Mitchell no land 1826 “ Aug. Huey 230a Neither Smith or Mitchell is assessed this year. 1823 “ nothing to Jas. Mitchell “ Hulet Smith, Shoemaker, no land “ “ Augs. Huey 230a 1838 “ Augs. Huey 150a “ “ Heulet Smith no land “ “ Henry Lewis do Charge of the Court This is an ejectment brought by Hulet Smith against Augustus Huey and John Huey for 9 acres of land in Shamokin Township. It appears in Evidence if you believe the ___________ that about 26 years ago,viz. 1818 or 1819, the present plaintiff & his stepfather went on to some land near the present 9 acres in controversy & raised a house & shortly after another house which has been occupied by the plff ever since. Henry Lewis helped put up Smith’s, the plff’s, house. About that time Lewis says that Hulet Smith marked the lines round this land. He was along with him. Nobody but Smith & himself were along when the marks were made. The lines were marked with an arc, blazes, & notches and ___ included upwards of 60 acres. In 1839 & 1840 David Rockafeller made an examination of the courses and lines claimed up to by Hulet Smith & found the quantity 40 & 65 & found a chestnut corner counting 22 yrs. & a number of blazed trees and different [apparent?] lines counting 2 years. The 9 acres in dispute according to the evidence given by Mr. Rockafeller, are within the survey as run by Mr. Rockafeller for Hulet Smith. The deft. claims this land by virtue of an improvement right, commenced previously to the settlement of Mitchell, or the plff, viz. about the year 1811. I have shown a warrant & survey including the land in dispute to Henry Staybrook. This survey being in the name of Staybrook gives no title to the defts. & merely shows that the land was appropriated & could not be acquired by actual settlement as such settlements can only be made on vacant & unappropriated lands. If the defts had claimed for upward of 21 years before suit brought to the boundaries of the Staybrook survey, & held adverse possession up to those lines for that period, their title would be good, but if not, then they cannot hold up to those lines, without having cleared & cultivated or occupied the said tract. In Lawrence vs. Hunter 9 W 64, it is decided that an intruder will be protected after 21 years, not only in that which he has cultivated & enclosed but also in all that which may be made useful & advantageous as a part of the farm without being enclosed and which is used on a part of the farm in that way & hence woodland in a reasonable quantity may be protected if there be any designation of the intent of the occupier to designate it as part of the farm. If the deft. had designated his boundaries at any time before the plff. marked out his, then he would have held a prior right to the extent of those boundaries, but if you believe John Campbell he says that he never knew anything about Huey’s claim till he got it surveyed. He claimed a good deal of land on the Staybrook tract. It was run for Huey by Rockafeller some years back. Huey claimed a settlement right on the Staybrook tract. When he settled on it he did knot know whose it was. When it came out that it was surveyed land there was a rookery about it. Huey hunted the owner to buy it of him but never found him. We cannot therefore see any evidence of a designation of the extent of defts. claim pervious to the survey made by Rockafeller & he swears that was in 1832, 3 or 4--some 13 or 14 years after the boundaries were marked by the plff if you believe Henry Lewis. In the present case both Plff and Deft are intruders on surveyed land, the mere circumstance of deft. showing in evidence the Staybrook warrant & survey gives him no right or title to the land included in it. If he had adopted the lines of that survey, then he would be protected by 21 years possession, but if you believe the witnesses, he did not know anything about the survey of Staybrook till long after Smith marked the boundaries. The 9 acres for which the ejectment is brought according __________ of Mr. Rockafeller appear to be within Smith’s lines & if they are, then, as both are situated & as 21 years possession will protect an intruder to the extent of the lines designated as part of his farm. If you believe the plff Smith is in possession 21 years prior to the commencement of the suit, he is entitled to recover the land in controversy. [last line illegible] signed J. Anthony _________ [last name is illegible]