Duncan research files of
1850 Bastrop Co. TX Census (also from Lucille Mehrkam 1983)
Pg.179, #248-266, Jane A. DUNCAN (f) 29 TN (blank) $0
Martha A. 12 AR
Sarah E. 10, John J. 8 TX
Wm. D. 3 TX
1860 Bastrop Co. TX Census (pg.291 also from Jean Walker 1984)
Town of Bastrop
Pg.248, #145-121, Absola DUNCAR? (f) 42 GA widow $500-$4700
Margaret 17 TX
Pg.250, #178-150, Sarah DUNCAR? "7" VA widow
"Johr" PERSONS 30 AL gent.
(MAD: ending of "Duncan" does not have the final downstroke of an "n"; household above this does not have Duncar or Duncan family.)
Bastrop P.O., 11 Sept. 1860, Precinct #12
Pg.291, #777-729, Mathew DUNCAN 54 SC farmer $3000-$1200
"Gerge" 25 GA potter $-$1000
Catherine 30 NC
Elizabeth 4, Hannah 2 TX
Sam W. 3/12 TX
(MAD: Matthew Duncan was in 1850 Ouachita Co. AR census, born Edgefield Co. SC, 1830 Coweta Co. GA census; George W. Duncan said to have married Catherine McDonald)
1870 Bastrop Co. TX Census (also from Kathy Locklin 7/2002)
Pg.436, #262-292, DUNCAN, John 28 MO "Missoury" MULATTO farm laborer $0-$0 mar. Decb.
Louisa 19 TX MULATTO keeping house, mar. Decb.
HILL, Maria 58 MO BLACK at home "W" (in mar. column)
Julia 16, Ida (f) 10 TX BLACKS
Pg.475, #763-840, DUNKAN, Sam 22 TX (white) farmer $0-$0
Susan 22 TX keeping house
William 1 TX
Pg.551, #1841-1962, DUNKAN, Abr. 25 TX BLACK farm laborer $0-$0
Millie 22 TN MULATTO keeping house
Nancy 2, Eveline 1 TX MULATTOS
1900 Bastrop Co. TX Census (partial; from Jane W. Beattie 7/1999, MAD's extract; see Butler Co. AL)
Precinct No. 2, Supervisor Dist. 269, Enumeration Dist. 5, Sheet 27, dated 30 June 1900
Pg.112A, #463-478, DUNCAN, Henry A., head, male, born June 1850, age 49 years, married 23 years, b.AL, AL, AL, farmer
Sarah D., wife, female, b. Oct. 1847, age 52 years, married 23 years, 5 children, 4 living, AL GA AL
Zula, dau., b. Apr. 1878, 22 years, single, AL AL AL
Bulah, dau., b. Sept. 1880, 19 years, single, AL AL AL
Bethel, son, b. June 1883, 16 years, single, TX, AL AL
Aneere?, dau., b. March 1886, 14 years, single, TX AL AL
"The Texas reports : Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during the latter part of the Galveston term 1877 and embracing the cases decided during the Austin term 1877" by Terrell & Walker; Vol.47, pgs.343 to 357 (California State Law Library, Sacramento, 1/2004)
H. CLAY PLEASANTS v. MATTHEW DUNKIN; Supreme Court of Texas; 47 Tex. 343; 1877, Decided.
Appeal from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. J.P. Richardson.
On the 23d of January, 1872, H. Clay Pleasants, as administrator of the estate of John York, deceased, brought suit against Matthew Dunkin et al. and the heirs of said York, deceased, to obtain possession of 1476 acres of land in Bastrop county, patented to the heirs of George W. Davis, deceased. The petition alleged disseizin, use, and occupation by the defendants, and prayed for judgment for the land, for rent, and damages.
On March 28, 1872, the appellees, Dunkin and Clark, demurred generally and specially to plaintiff's petition, and urged a misjoinder of parties, in mingling in one suit, as defendants, the appellees, who were alleged to be wrong-doers and in possession of the land, with the heirs of John York, deceased.
On the 28th of March, 1872, the defendant Clark disclaimed any title to the land, but claimed to hold the same as tenant for his co-defendant Dunkin, and asked that all pleas and answers of said Dunkin be received as his also. On the same day, the defendant Dunkin answered. In his answer, he plead "not guilty," and the three, five, and ten years' statutes of limitation.
On the 24th of July, 1872, the defendants amended their answer, and pleaded in bar of plaintiff's right of action the matter which will be found referred to in plaintiff's bill of exceptions.
On July 30, 1873, the defendants filed another amended answer, denying everything which had been alleged by the plaintiff, especially denying that any land certificate was ever issued by the board of land commissioners of Washington county to George W. Davis, on the first day of January, 1839, or on any other day in 1839, or to the heirs of the said George W. Davis in the year 1839, or that the original bona fide certificate issued to the heirs of the said George W. Davis ever was located upon the land sued for by plaintiff.
The parties agreed that the plaintiff was the legal administrator of John York, deceased.
The patent attached as an exhibit to the petition recited that it was based on a certificate issued to heirs of George W. Davis, by the board of land commissioners of Washington county, on the first day of January, 1839.
The parties waived a jury, and submitted the cause to the court, who overruled defendant's demurrers, and rendered judgment in their favor against the plaintiff for costs, and dismissed his suit.
From this judgment, the plaintiff Pleasants appealed. His assignments of error were the negative of the positions assumed by the court below, as the same appears in plaintiff's bill of exceptions.
On the trial, the plaintiff proposed to introduce in evidence--
1. The patent to heirs of George W. Davis, as the same was copied in the exhibit to plaintiff's petition.
2. Transcript of proceedings in the matter of the estate of George W. Davis, deceased, in the Probate Court of Washington county.
3. Proces verbal from Dan. J. Toler, judge of probate of Washington county, to Robert A. Lott.
4. Deed from R. A. Lott to John York, plaintiff's intestate.
To the introduction of which the defendants, Dunkin and Clark, objected, for the following reasons:
"First. Because the patent filed in this cause, and upon which the plaintiff relies for title from the Government to recover the land sued for, shows upon its face that the certificate located upon the land in controversy, and upon which the patent issued, was another and different certificate from the one described in the deed or transfer offered in evidence, to wit, a certificate issued to the heirs of one George W. Davis, on the first day of January, 1839, all of which shows that the land involved in this suit was patented upon another and different certificate than the one described in the deed or transfer offered in evidence, and therefore not admissible in evidence to establish title in plaintiff to the land described in the patent made a part of his petition.
"Second. Because the said Dan. J. Toler, neither in his individual capacity, nor as judge of probate, had any right or authority to execute said deed or transfer, and that the same did not transfer or pass any title to the said R. A. Lott, and because said supposed deed or transfer was and is null and void, and irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence in this case for any purpose.
"Third. Because the original petition filed by the said William Pettus, in the Probate Court of Washington county, praying for letters of administration upon the estate of the said George W. Davis, shows upon its face affirmatively that the Probate Court of Washington county had no jurisdiction over the estate of the said George W. Davis, if, in truth, at the date thereof, the said Davis was dead; and because said original petition shows upon its face that said George W. Davis was not dead at the date of the granting of said letters of administration; and because the petition shows upon its face that said George W. Davis never was a resident or inhabitant of the said county of Washington.
"Fourth. The Probate Court of Washington county had no authority of law to order the sale of the certificate described in said deed or transfer; and for all the causes hereinbefore and hereinafter stated and set forth, said deed or transfer was and is null and void; and because the said William Pettus never was administrator of the estate of the said George W. Davis; because he never did execute any bond payable to the judge of probate, in accordance with the order of the court, and as the law then required; and because the certificate described in the deed or transfer never had been located upon the land described in plaintiff's petition, or any duplicate thereof; but the same is now in the district clerk's office of Washington county, as is shown by a certified copy, which is incorporated in the transcript from the Probate Court of Washington county, offered in evidence by the plaintiff.
"Fifth. Because the transcript from the County Court of Washington county, of the proceedings in the matter of the estate of G. W. Davis, deceased, discloses the fact that no counsel was appointed by the court to represent the absent heirs of said Davis, deceased, and that said absent heirs were at no time, nor in any way, represented in said proceeding, nor did said absent heirs, or any one of them, at any time, or in any manner, assent to said order of sale, nor did such absent heirs, or any one for them, at any time, or in any manner, assent to, ratify, or confirm said sale; all of which was contrary to the express provisions of the law for such cases made and provided.
"Sixth. Because no character of indebtedness was ever established by any one against the estate of said G. W. Davis, deceased, or presented to the pretended administrator, Pettus, for his allowance, or presented to the probate judge of Washington county for approval, in the manner and form prescribed by law; because there is no evidence in said deed or transfer, or otherwise, that the said William Pettus ever sold the certificate described in said deed or transfer, and because there is no legal evidence in said deed or transfer that the said R. A. Lott ever paid anything for said certificate, and said alleged deed or transfer is, therefore, a nudum pactum, if anything; because the said Dan. J. Toler had no authority to execute said deed or transfer, or to set forth that said William Pettus had acknowledged the receipt of two hundred dollars from the said R. A. Lott for the purchase-money of said certificate, and because said deed or transfer shows upon its face that it is not signed, and was not executed by the said William Pettus, or by his authority; because it is not such an instrument, when recorded, as makes constructive notice of title to the property described in it; because the administrator applied for, or demanded, a sale of the property in less than thirty days after his alleged appointment as administrator of the estate, when the law required him to wait thirty days after he was appointed, before he could demand a sale of property, --therefore said sale was and is void, and said deed or transfer pursuant thereto is void, and not admissible in evidence in this case to establish any right in this suit.
"Because the said Dan. J. Toler had no authority to adjudicate a title from the said William Pettus to the said R. A. Lott; because counsel for the absent heirs of G. W. Davis was not notified of the application for the sale, or of the sale having been made, and because said sale was not ratified or consented to by the counsel for the absent heirs, as the law in force at that time required.
"Defendants further object to the introduction of the patent, made an exhibit to plaintiff's petition, as evidence to support plaintiff's right to recover, because the patent purports to have been issued upon and by virtue of a certificate issued on the first day of January, 1839, while the record of the proceedings of the Probate Court of Washington county, offered in evidence by plaintiffs, show that the certificate petitioned to have been sold by the pretended administrator, William Pettus, was issued on the eleventh day of January, A. D. 1840, and that the said certificate has never been located and patented, but is now on file in the Probate Court of Washington county.
"Defendant objects to the introduction of the pretended deed from R. A. Lott to John York, because the same is incompetent as evidence to support the plaintiff's right to recover in this suit, for all the reasons assigned as grounds against the introduction of the deed from Dan. J. Toler to the said R. A. Lott, and for all the reasons assigned as grounds of objection to the introduction of the patent made an exhibit to plaintiff's petition."
The court below rejected said evidence, and adopted said reasons as the grounds of said rejection, and incorporated the same in plaintiff's bill of exception.
There is no affirmative evidence among the papers offered in evidence, that any inventory of the property of Davis was ever filed; that any debts had been proven up against his estate; or that any formal return of sale or confirmation of sale was ever made.
The proces verbal, under which Toler, the probate judge, undertook to convey the certificate belonging to the estate of Davis to Lott, was as follows:
"Republic of Texas, County of Washington. Be it remembered, that on the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty, William Pettus, administrator of the succession of George W. Davis, late of the county of Washington, deceased, offered for sale at the door of the court-house of the town of Washington, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., in pursuance of a decree of the Probate Court of the said county of Washington, rendered at the January Term of said court last passed, and in pursuance with advertisements made according to law, the said William Pettus, administrator, offered for sale, for cash, the following property, belonging to the estate of the said George W. Davis, deceased, to wit, 'the headright certificate of the said George W. Davis for one third of a league of land, being No. 491, issued by the Board of Land Commissioners for the county of Washington; which said certificate was bid off by Robert A. Lott, at the price of two hundred dollars, that being the highest and best bid made for the same, and exceeding two thirds of the price at which the same was appraised: Now, therefore, know all men by these presents, that I, Daniel J. Toler, chief justice and judge of probate in and for the county aforesaid, for and in consideration of the sum of two hundred dollars, to the said William Pettus, administrator as aforesaid, in hand paid, receipt whereof the said William Pettus acknowledges, do hereby adjudicate the said certificate to the said Robert A. Lott, his heirs and assigns. To all of which, I, the said judge, certify, by signing this instrument, at office in Washington, with Robert Merritt and Samuel Patterson, witnesses, and affixing my private seal, having no seal of office, this fifth day of March, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and forty. Dan. J. Toler, [seal.] Witnesses: Judge of Probate. Robt. Merritt, Saml. Patterson."
It was proven up, on the 22d of July, 1858, before Samuel Lusk, the county clerk of Washington county, by A. Clampitt and G. W. Horton, who swore to the handwriting of Toler and the witness Merritt.
(MAD: headnotes and arguments of counsel omitted here)
(opinion) GOULD, Associate Justice. -- It is contended that the transcript from the Probate Court of Washington county shows on its face that the court had no jurisdiction over the estate of George W. Davis. The first ground on which this is claimed involves the proposition that, under the laws in force in January, 1840, the Probate Court of Washington county had no power to grant letters of administration on the estates of persons who were not "inhabitants of or resident in said county at the time of their decease." The 24th section of the act of December 20, 1836, "organizing the inferior courts and defining the power and jurisdiction of the same, (Hart. Dig., art. 252,) is as follows: "The chief justices of the County Courts shall be judges of probate for their respective counties; shall take the probate of wills; grant letters of administration on the estates of persons deceased, who were inhabitants of or resident in said county at the time of their decease; shall appoint guardians to minors, idiots, and lunatics; and, in conjunction with the associate justices, shall examine and settle the accounts of executors, administrators, and guardians; and said chief justices shall have full jurisdiction of all testamentary and other matters appertaining to a Probate Court within their respective counties." Conceding that, as an original question of the construction of this act, standing alone, it might well be questioned whether it did not limit the jurisdiction of the court as is claimed, we remark that, prior to the grant of administration on the estate of Davis, there had been other legislation inconsistent with such a construction.
In 1838, various restrictions on the appointment and action of administrators of estates of deceased soldiers or officers, "other than a citizen soldier, who was a citizen of Texas, in the full exercise of his rights as such at the time of his death," were enacted, impliedly recognizing the validity of administrations on the estates of soldiers, and of others not residents or citizens of the State. (Hart. Dig., arts. 984-990.) See also Hart. Dig., art. 269, which provides for the transfer of administrations theretofore pending before the primary courts to the Probate Courts where the deceased had his domicile at the time of his death, "or, if he had no fixed domicile, then to the clerk of the Probate Court where the deceased died or where the majority of the property of the deceased is situated." Taking these enactments into view, following what is believed to have been the contemporary and practical construction of the powers of the Probate Court, we hold, that that court had jurisdiction to grant letters on the estates of decedents who were not residents of the county at the time of their decease.
It is further urged that the petition for letters of administration shows that Davis was not dead, and that therefore the administration was void. The petition contained an averment that petitioner verily believed that Davis had departed this life, and was unquestionably sufficient to admit of proof of his death. Although it may appear that the petitioner, when his petition was filed, had no positive information of the death of Davis, it must be presumed that the court did not act without being satisfied of the fact. The validity of the administration certainly depends on the fact of death, but it does not depend on the positive knowledge of the petitioner of that fact. It is true that the petition states a case in which the court might have declined to act, but it must be presumed that inquiry was made, and that it was found that the belief of the petitioner was well grounded. It would be most unsafe to make the validity of the administration depend on the sufficiency of the petition, conducted, as administrations often were in this State, without legal advice; and we are of opinion that the transcript of the proceedings of the Probate Court of Washington county does not disclose any want of jurisdiction in that court.
Numerous objections were made to the validity of the order of sale of the certificate, some of which may be disposed of by the remark, that the certificate was not real estate, but was subject to be sold, as other personal property. The validity of the order of sale did not depend on the regularity of the bond, or the appearance, in the record of compliance with all of the regulations prescribed in the Civil Code of Louisiana. The courts of Louisiana, like the courts of Texas, hold that a bona fide purchaser is protected by the decree of a court which has jurisdiction. They hold also that the decree of sale would not be an absolute nullity by reason of the omission to appoint an attorney to represent absent heirs.
The ordinance of January 22, 1839, (Hart. Dig., art. 983,) decreed "that all proceedings relative to successions, matters of probate, et cetera, shall be regulated and governed agreeably to the principles and laws in similar cases in the State of Louisiana: Provided, That no judge shall act as administrator." The meaning of this proviso is evidently the same as if the proviso read, "no judge shall receive letters of administration." See Hart. Dig., art. 993, for a similar prohibition as to clerks. We see nothing in this proviso, nor in the act defining the time of administration and sheriff's sale, conflicting with articles 2600 and 2601 of the Civil Code of the State of Louisiana, as it was in force in 1839 and 1840, as follows: "Art. 2600. The judicial sale of succession property is made by the judge or clerk of the court to which this jurisdiction is specially confided. Art. 2601. The adjudication made and recorded by the judge or clerk of a court, is a complete title to the purchaser, and need not be followed by an act passed before a notary."
The conveyance, adjudication, or proces verbal, executed by the judge of probate to the purchaser, seems to be an effort to follow these articles of the Louisiana code. At the time of the sale, the act regulating the duties of Probate Courts, &c., (Hart. Dig., art. 995, et seq.,) had not yet gone into operation, as it had in the case of Hall v. Hall, 11 Tex. 526, in which a similar case was held invalid. As we understand the Louisiana civil code then in force, and the decisions of the Louisiana courts, such an instrument was the appropriate evidence of an administration sale, and, with the lights before us, we cannot hold that it was invalid.
There seems to be a discrepancy in the date of the certificate as given in the patent, and the date of the certificate issued to the administrator of Davis. This discrepancy constituted no valid objection to the admission of the patent in evidence. As the patent had been made an exhibit to the petition, there could be no variance. It was a question of fact, not affecting the admissibility of the patent, whether, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the date of the certificate, the patent did not refer to the same certificate which was issued to the administrator of Davis.
Because the court erred in excluding the various instruments of evidence offered by plaintiff, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Matagorda Co. TX Probate Minutes v.A-C 1837-1858 (FHL film 1,011,113; SLC 6/2009)
C-69: Petition of Wm. L. Sartwell of Matagorda Co. TX, that 3 May 1846, Mrs. Julia Duncan, a resident of said county and wife of John Duncan of said county, died intestate; she left large possessions consisting of undivided half of community of acquests and gains acquired during their residence in said county, petition for administration, signed Jas. Denison, atty for petitioner. Letters issued Nov. 24, 1851. Appraisers appointed. C-74: Inventory filed 29 Dec. 1851. C-78: Petition of John Duncan of same county, the estate of Julia Duncan, decd, former wife of this petitioner, is indebted to this petitioner in the sum of $24,705.00; the money was part of a sum belonging to this petitioner individually and expended in the purchase of community property during the lifetime of said Julia Duncan his wife now deceased; the property in the inventory was her share of community property. C-80: Accounting $60,000 furnished by petitioner expended to purchase money property in Texas after removal to Texas in 1837 ... 1/2 crop of rice in 1846 ... and debts in 1846. Land in ... Brazoria, Wharton, Calhoun, Bastrop, Burlison Co. and Matagorda Co.
Matagorda Co. TX Deed
H-310/312: #3357. William L. Sartwell, administrator of the succession of Julia Duncan decd. appointed by County Court of Matagorda Co., by virtue of a decree of said court 30 Dec. 1851, after advertisement, on first Tuesday in Feb. 1852, offered for sale to highest bidder for cash, property belonging to succession of Julia Duncan decd, when John Duncan became the purchaser as last and highest bidder of the undivided 1/2 of 3090 acres in Matagorda Co. on Caney Creek, originally granted to I. Foster, for $1549.50; and the undivided half of 2214 acres in Matagorda Co. on Caney Creek originally granted to Wm. Baxter, for $415.12; and undivided half of 206 acres in Matagorda Co. on Cedar Lake originally granted to McCoy & Decrow, for $206.00; and undivided half of 2159 acres in Matagorda Co. on Live Oak originally granted to Williams & Flowers, at $1 per acre amounting to the sum of $1079.50; the undivided half of 4611 acres of land in Matagorda Co. on Live Oak originally granted to S. Williams for $1305.50; the undivided half of 1373 acres in Matagorda Co. on Caney Creek originally granted to A.C. Buckner for $2059.50; the undivided half of 500 acres in Matagorda Co. originally granted to Isaac Vandorn for $750.00; the undivided half of 740 acres in Matagorda Co. on Trespalacios Bay originally granted to I.E. Robertson for $625; the undivided half of 1,666 acres in Matagorda Co. on Trespalacios Creek originally granted to George J. Williams for $208.25; the undivided half of 177 acres in Matagorda Co. on Trespalacios Bay originally granted to James Hughson for $350; the undivided half of 4205 acres in Matagorda Co. on Turtle Bay originally granted to John Duncan for $575.63; the undivided half of 4 acres of land in Matagorda Co. on the Colorado river originally granted to Henry Williams for $25; the undivided half of 640 acres in Matagorda Co. in Bay Prairie originally granted to R.S. Briggs for $80; the undivided half of 1280 acres in Matagorda Co. in Bay Prairie originally granted to William Brown for $160; the undivided half of 640 acres in Matagorda Co. in Bay Prairie originally granted to J. Whitworth for $80; the undivided half of 1107 acres in Brazoria Co. on Linvill bayou originally granted to W.C. Carson at $1 per acre amounting to $553.50; the undivided half of 2214 acres in Wharton Co. on the Colorado river originally granted to J. Tumlinson for $2214; the undivided half of of 333 acres in Calhoun Co. on Matagorda Bay originally granted to James Hughson for $41.63; the undivided half of 4428 acres in Bastrop Co. on Rabbs Creek originally granted to J.D.G. Vanellman for $553.50; the undivided half of 4428 acres in Bastrop Co. on Colorado river originally granted to Perry B. Iles for $553.50; undivided half of 2214 acres in Burlison Co. on Elm Creek originally granted to David Clark for $276.75; undivided half of 2214 acres in Burlison Co. on Yegua Creek originally granted to Orvil Perry for $276.75; also undivided half of 500 head of cattle in Matagorda Co. for $750. On 23 Feb. 1852, I, William L. Sartwell Admin., filed in the County Court a return of sale, the Chief Justice confirmed it and ordered a conveyance be made to the purchaser; now William L. Sartwell as Administrator in consideration of $14,965.38, convey to said John Duncan all the interest of said Julia Duncan deceased to the described property. 24 Feb. 1852. /s/ W.L. Sartwell. Wit. Jas. H. Selkirk, Galen Hodges. Recorded 22 March 1852. (FHL film 1,011,104; SLC 9/11/2010)
1893 "History of Texas, together with a biographical history of Milam, Williamson, Bastrop, Travis, Lee and Burleson counties : containing a concise history of the state, with portraits and biographies of prominent citizens of the above named counties, and personal histories of many of the early settlers and leading families" pub. by Lewis Publ. Co. (FHL film 1,000,605 item 2; from Jean Walker 7/1984)
Pgs.273-4: LOUIS EILERS. ... born Amsterdam, Holland, February 1, 1828 ... In 1852 he sailed for America, and spent the first year here prospecting, his observations resulting in his selecting Bastrop, TX, as a location for his operations. ... Mr. Eilers was married the year following his establishment in business to Caroline Johnson, of Albany, NY, who became the mother of five children; she died June 23, 1885, at Austin, TX. ... Louis, Jr., the eldest son, was born August 22, 1861, ... In 1892 the firm name was changed to Louis Eilers & Son, and the son is a worthy descendant of the father. On October 30, 1883, he was united in marriage to Miss Emma Duncan, a daughter of the Rev. J. Duncan, a prominent rector of the Episcopal Church. ...
Henry Andrew Duncan Family Bible (from Jane Winfree Beattie 7/1999; Henry Andrew Duncan, son of J.B. & S.A. Duncan, b. Butler Co. AL, wife Nancy R., wife Sara Delilah Bailey mar. 7/22/1877 Butler Co. AL):
The New Testament of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, ... New York, American Bible Society, 1874.
H.A. Duncan was Born June the 25th 1850
N.R. Duncan was Born Apr the 28th 1850
Sarah S. Duncan was Born Jan the 15th 1873
Jesse B. Duncan was Born June the 21st 1874
Oliv L. Duncan was Bornd Sept the 23d 1876
S.D. Duncan was Bornd Oct the 12th 1847
Zuella Duncan was Bornd Apr the 9th 1878
Bulah Duncan was Born Sept the 19th 1880
Bethel Duncan was Bornd June the 1st 1883
Births (page 2)
Aner Duncan was Bornd March the 24th 1886 (MAD: March 26 given on family group sheet)
Some early Duncans in Bastrop Co. TX:
Francis Duncan, 10 March 1839, enlisted as Private in the Texas Rangers under Capt. M. Andrews, discharged 10 June 1839; enlisted 10 June 1839 in Bastrop Rangers under Capt. N. Merrill, discharged 10 Sept. 1839. ("Texas Rangers Service Records 1830-1846" by Frances Terry Ingmire, from Lucille Mehrkam 11/1985, FHL book 976.4 M2if Vol.1)
George J. Duncan, May 1839, arrived TX; had 3rd class Conditional Certificate for 320 acres in Bastrop Co. dated Dec. 1839. ("1840 Citizens of TX; Land Grants" Vol.1, by Gifford White; FHL book 976.4 R2wge and fiche 6,100,364; from Lucille Mehrkam 1984)
Frances Duncan, 1840, on tax list, 1 white pole, no land (pg.7, perhaps "1840 Citizens of TX; Tax Rolls" Vol.2, by Gifford White, FHL book 976.4 R2wge and fiche 6,100,365; from Lucille Mehrkam 1984)
Jane A. Duncan, 30 Nov. 1851, mar. A.B. Faith
Martha J. Duncan, 12 or 22 Oct. 1859, mar. J.E. Crowson
Mary Ann Duncan, 28 Dec. 1865, mar. Henderson Scott
Danl. Duncan, 30 Dec. 1865, mar. Sylva Coulson
Catherine Duncan, 23 July 1868, mar. N.E. Fitzpatrick
John Duncan, 13 Sept. 1868, mar. Louisa McGinnis
Ursula (Upsula?) Duncan, Jan. 1870, died from sudden apoplexy, age 57, b.AL, female, white, widow, Town of Bastrop (1870 Bastrop Co. TX Mortality Schedule, from Jean Walker 1984)
"Bastrop Co. (TX) 1691-1900" Rev. Ed., 1976, by Bill Moore (Houston, TX, library book 976.452 M821 from Lucille Mehrkam 3/1984; FHL book 976.432 H2m)
Pg.176-177 of this book contain a reference to a pottery business begun in 1854 at McDade, "instigated by a Mr. Matthew Dunkin, an early settler who came to America from Scotland in 1854. He operated a pottery and jug shop, called Randolph Factory, east of Bastrop for a number of years. At his death the shop was sold to Milton Stoker who operated it on the original site until he moved it to McDade nearer the clay deposits."
Matthew Duncan or Dunkin on the census in 1830 Coweta Co. GA, 1840 Randolph Co. AL, 1850 Ouachita Co. AR, and 1860 and 1880 Bastrop Co. TX:
There is a lot of source information about this Matthew Duncan on the website of Janis Trayler:
Return to Index to Duncan Research Files in Texas
Return to The Genealogy Bug's Home Page