callie you might have all this i dont know but ill send it anyway. Seems all is thru the Keenes one way or another Bolton and now Jenkins, and these mulatos coming of theseindenured English girls. oh well keep it or what ever you like.
[John Jenkins] "Married Martha [believed to be Garner] the dau. of John
and Susanna (Keene) Garner. To date there is no primary proof available
other than wording of deeds [ i.e. "just right and inheritance" or "diver
good cause or reason"], to prove Martha's father was John Garner.
However, theses Deeds lead one to believe there was a family
Like other Jenkins researchers, I admired Gilreath's work and was
delighted at the possibility that Martha's family had been found, yet I
have never been persuaded that the secondary evidence from land records
was conclusive. I am now convinced that the deeds, even as secondary
evidence, simply do not support Gilreath's conclusions. Part of the
reason why it is important to set this out is that Martha Garner now
appears wholesale as John Jenkins' wife in other published work and on the
internet, and that is short-circuiting the research necessary to determine
who she really was. Given the close relations between the Jenkins and
Garner families, other evidence might well demonstrate that Martha was
indeed Martha Garner, but till such evidence surfaces, the most we can
conclude is that the two families were close neighbors busily involved in
each other's lives.
There seems to be one chief deed containing the two phrases that Gilreath
uses to suggest the identification of Martha, John Jenkins' wife, as
Martha Garner, daughter of John and Susanna (Keene) Garner:
"John Jenkins of Cople Paris, West'd. co., planter...to John Gardner &
Vincent Gardner, for divers good causes & considerations in the law...all
interest in 100 a. commonally called Horne Point on Youcomoco River in
Cople Parish...." [Grandparents, p. 257]
Gilreath believes that the deed shows family relationships between John
Jenkins, who married Martha Garner, and Vincent Garner, who had married
John Jenkins' sister:
"Note: this is obviously the land that Nicholas obtained from Samuel Earle
in 1669. Since John is selling his "interest" in the land, it makes one
wonder what the other two children of Nicholas' did not sign over their
interest in the land. This is why I concluded that Nicholas' other child
is a daughter who married Vincent Garner and that John had married Martha
Garner. On 29 May 1695 John Jenkins acknowledged this deed and stated
that "the premises conveyed are the right and inheritance of John Garner
and Vincent Garner." [Grandparents, p. 257]
There are several possibilities why Nicholas Jenkins' other children did
not join in this deed. One might be that they were dead. The other is
that, as daughters, they had no right in the land. Here C17 law might
help us and I do not know what it is, but I'd be willing to guess that,
since Nicholas Jenkins died intestate, all the land went to his son.
Nicholas certainly had the right to give or bequeath land to his daughters
(or anyone else) but he did not do so before he died, and he did do so by
will and last testament.
I believe that the deed above is much duller in its implications, just
part of chain of earlier deeds clearing up a mess left by his father's
death 22-23 years before. He was basically quitclaiming rights to land
which his father had sold John Garner Sr; John Jenkins had to do this
because his father died before executing a deed for the land which he had
sold to John Garner. The following chain of deeds and wills puts the John
Jenkins 1695 transaction in what I hope is the proper light.
1.Samuel Earle sold the land to Nicholas Jenkins in 1669;
[Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, p. 52; Westmoreland
County Deeds and Wills 1, p. 355; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia,
Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt. 1, p. 55]:
Samll. Earle of Yeocomiccoe, planter, in Westmoreland County, to Nicholas
Jenkings. 100 acres in Horne Point, beginning at the pointe and running
up Yeocomicoe River to Spring Neck; 27 October 1669.
2.Nicholas Jenkins sold the land to John Garner and Robert Middleton
three years later in 1672; [Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc.
1665-1677, p. 156a; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents,
etc. 1665-1677, pt. 2, pp. 58-59]:
Samll. and Bridgett Earle's sale of land to Nich: Jenkins record in foll.
Nicholas Jenkins unto John Garner and Robt. Middleton. All my interest of
this land. Witnesses Andrew Reade and Timothy WigJohn. 26 Dec. 1672.
Nicholas Jenkins appointed his well beloved friend Samll. Earle his
attorney to acknowledge a parcell of land lying in Horne poynt Neck unto
John Gardner and Robt. Middleton; 1 July 1673. Samll. Earle as attorney
acknowledged the sale 24 September 1673.
3.Nicholas Jenkins died between 27 July 1673 when he dated his will
and 29 November 1673 when his will was proven in Westmoreland County
Court; [Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc.
1665-1677, pt. 2, p. 71]. Nicholas Jenkins was clearly still alive when
he gave power of attorney to Samuel Earle to acknowledge the sale of the
100 acres to John Garner and Robert Middleton, but he may have already
been dead when Samuel Earle actually made the acknowledgment 24 September
4.For whatever reason, John Garner and Robert Middleton were anxious
about their title to the 100 acres, and so they got depositions from the
witnesses to the sale and from Nicholas Jenkins' widow to confirm their
title; [Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pp. 177-177a;
Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt.
2, pp. 77-78]:
Andrew Reade, aged about [ ]6 yeares of therabouts, saith that uppon 26
Xber [Dec.] last Nich: Jenkins did assigne all his interest of a bill of
sale of 100 acres of land baring date 27 8ber [Oct.] 1669 unto Robt.
Middleton and Jno. Gardner. Middleton and Gardner past there bill each of
them for 1500 pounds of tobacco. 25 Feb. 1673/4
Timothy WigJohn, aged about 21 or thereabouts, depose to that above
written. 25 Feb. 1673/4.
Robt Jefferies, aged about 35 yeares or therabouts, saith that uppon 18
July last I was with Jno. Garnder and Robt. Midleton at Nich: Jenkins'
house when he lay uppon his death bedd where Jno: Gardner and Robt.
Midleton was talking about confirmation of land bought of him. He said as
God is my witnesse I meane nothing but honesty in the matter." 25 Feb.
Amy Jenkins, aged about 45 years or thereabouts, saith that upon 15 July
last Jno. Gardner and Robt. Midleton was at her house talking with her
husband concerning the confirmation of land they bought of him. He said
as God is my witnesse I meane nothing but honesty n the matter. It was
uppon his death bed.. 25 Feb. 1673-/4.
5.Later that same year John Garner and Robert Middleton were still
nervous about their title to the land, and so they got legal assurance
from Nicholas Jenkins' widow Amy and her new husband William Rogers;
[Westmoreland County Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pp. 212; Dorman,
Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds, Patents, etc. 1665-1677, pt. 3, pp.
Bond of Wm. Rogers and Amy Rogers unto Robt. Middleton and Jno" Gardner.
For 6000 pounds of tobacco. To keepe harmeless from all ejectments by
reason of a sale of 100 acres sold by Nich: Jenkins, deceased, which was
not acknowledged before his decease. 28 8ber 1674.
6.Now comes John Jenkins deed to John Garner and Vincent Garner;
[abstracted in Westmoreland County Deeds and Wills No. 2, 1691-1699, pp.
24-24a; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds & Wills No. 2,
1691-1699, p. 12]:
Here follows a transcript of the indenture taken from a microfilm copy of
the Westmoreland land records. (The spelling and punctuation have been
"This indenture made this 15th day of January Anno Dom. 1694 Between John
Jenkins of the Parish of Cople in the County of Westmoreland, Planter of
the one part, and John Gardner and Vincent Gardner both of the Parish and
County aforesaid of the other Part, Witnesseth that the said John Jenkins
for divers good and valuable causes and considerations in the Law, him
thereunto moving, have granted, bargained, sold, and by these presents
doth grant, bargain, and sell unto the said John Gardner and Vincent
Gardner and their heirs, all his right, title, interest, property, claims,
and demand whatsoever, which he the said John Jenkins now hath or which he
may, might, or ought to have of and in 100 acres of land be the same more
or less commonly called Horne Point, situate, lying, and being on
Youcomoco River in the said Parish of Cople, to have and to hold the
aforesaid, right, title, interest, property, claim, and demand whatsoever
of him the said John Jenkins of, in, and to the said land and premisses
aforesaid, unto them the said John Gardner and Vincent Gardner, their
heirs, and assigns forever. And the said John Jenkins for himself doth
covenant, promise, and agree to and with the said John Gardner and Vincent
Gardner, their heirs, and assigns, that he hath not by any ways or means
whatsoever, heretofore alienated or made away his right and interest to
the premises aforesaid, to any person or persons whatsoever, and that the
said John Gardner and Vincent Gardner, their heirs and assigns shall and
may peaceably have, hold, and enjoy the same from time to time and at all
times hereafter without the lett or interruption of the said John Jenkins,
his heirs, and assigns, or any person or persons claiming by, from, or
under him or them, and further that the said John Jenkins, his heirs, and
assigns shall and will at any time within six months, upon the request of
the said John and Vincent, their heirs, or assigns, or assigns [sic], any
or either of them acknowledge these presents in the County Court of
Westmoreland. In witness whereof, the parties above named have hereunto
interchangeably set their hands and seals the day and year first above
This indenture was witnessed by Simon Robins, Sarah Waggott, Richard
Sutton, and John Jenkins acknowledged this conveyance in court 29 May
Several points are worth considering here. First, John Garner was
evidently the same man who bought the land in 1672. Next, the deed itself
is unusual in several respects: first it mentions "interest" in the land,
not the land itself; most deeds speak not of "interest in 100 acres" but
of "100 acres". Second, it does not appear that the Garners had to pay
anything. While the wording of the deed rambles around, it is
nevertheless to all appearances a quitclaim deed. John Garner still
wanted clear title to the land, and John Jenkins was willing to give it to
him. John Jenkins' conveyance of his "interest" in keeping with "for
divers good causes and considerations in the law" thus probably means
nothing more than that John Jenkins is acknowledging his father's sale of
The reason why John Garner associated his son Vincent Garner in this legal
assurance becomes apparent in his will, dated 22 January 1702/3, proven 26
May 1703, in which he gave Vincent the same 100 acres: "And I give unto my
said son Vincent Garner and to his heirs a parcel of land lying in horn
point." [Westmoreland County Deeds and Wills No. 3, 1701-1707, pp.
153-154; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Deeds and Wills No. 3,
1701-1707, pp. 44-45] John Garner, who knew that he was going to leave
the tract to his son Vincent, was simply looking ahead.
The words "right and inheritance of John Garner and Vincent Gardner" in
the 1695 acknowledgement of the deed thus probably mean the right of John
Garner (who bought the land) and the inheritance of Vincent Garner (who
his father had decided was going to inherit the land). Though the
wording is not particularly clear, it seems to mean that Vincent was going
to gain title of the land because he was his father's heir, not because he
was Nicholas Jenkins' son-in-law. Even if Gilreath's analysis were
correct, it remains puzzling why Vincent Garner's father should also
figure in the deed: John Garner might have a claim because he bought the
land, but he certainly had no claim to Jenkins land by right of
Here I might add that one problem with my interpretation is that Vincent
Garner in his own will, dated 30 September 1710, proven Northumberland
County VA, bequeathed the 100 acres which "he bought from John Jenkins".
Even here though, Vincent Garner thought he had bought the land, not got
it through family ties.
If this analysis of the deed is correct, then the deed does not
demonstrate, even as secondary evidence, that Martha Garner was John
A further bit of circumstantial evidence puzzles me. On 26 June 1717
Martha Jenkins testified that her husband John Jenkins had died intestate.
The Court gave her letters of administration for her late husband's
estate, and George Eskridge was her security. [Westmoreland County Order
Book 1705-1721, p. 313; Dorman, Westmoreland County, Virginia, Order Book
1705-1721, pt 7, p. 2] Though I have not paid close enough attention to
the relationships of those posting bond for others in probate matters, my
impression nonetheless remains that they are often close kin. I have
wondered why, if Martha were indeed Martha Garner, one of her remaining
brothers did not post bond. There may well be good reasons, but possibly
Martha was closely related instead to George Eskridge, a possibility worth
investigating. Henry Garner was one of four men appointed to appraise
John Jenkins' estate, but that is something that the neighbors, rather
than family members, habitually did.
Yet another bit of circumstantial evidence. We know that Martha Garner
was alive 22 January 1702/3 when her father left her a legacy. She was
also alive 31 March 1718 when her brother Benjamin left her a legacy.
Maddeningly , neither her father's will nor her brother's will gives her a
surname. Benjamin's will specifies the surname of everyone else in the
will including that of his sister Mary Price. A possible conclusion might
be that Martha Garner was unmarried in 1702 and remained unmarried in
1718. As against this theory, Mary Garner appears in her father's will
without surname, yet she was apparently married by 1682, twenty years
before her father wrote his will.
Certainly others might well differ in their analysis of the deed or its
relation to other deeds and documents, and I'm eager to see what others
have to say on the matter. Or what further evidence can be brought to
bear on this problem.