ZDUTTON – Next question: Howell Dutton, and PARRISH family confusion

From: Richardson <richardson-decatur-al@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: ZDUTTON – Next question: Howell Dutton, and PARRISH family confusion
Date: 1999-07-19 23:01:14
Eula wrote:
> Darlene sent "GRANVILLE CO NC Court Minutes, pp. 283-284,
> 1746-1820;  FEBRUARY, 1820
> Zachariah, Judith and Howel Dutton to William M. SNEED for
> 374 and 1/8 acres.

> Question:  Anyone have any idea or theory as to who this
> Howel Dutton is? Darlene wondered if Howel was a son 
> b. abt 1774 and died before 1828 and Matilda was his wife??

I've seen this record before, and always instinctively
ignored it (Aagh!!! Not more controversy! Cover your eyes!
Ignore it, and maybe it will go away!) No, I didn't really
say that! Honestly, I dismissed it as a transcription error
-- but now that I look at it again, it's possible I was

I had assumed that the "Howell Dutton" was meant to be
"Howell Parrish", a child of Judith Parrish by her first
husband. I don't have a record of a Howell Parrish anywhere
else, though, as far as I know. There are several records
mentioning the children of Claiborn and Judith Parrish, but
none of them are very clear. All of the transcriptions I
have are severely abstracted, and don't really make much
sense at all at times. I know that there was a good bit of
talk on this subject while I was off at school, so for my
sake, as well as anyone else who is as confused as I am, let
us have a brief review:

From: Eula Dutton Coleman <ECol91234@aol.com> 
Subject: Zachariah D. and Judith Parish
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 01:39:29 EDT

> In a marriage record from Granville County, NC one of my 
> cousins (not of the net group) sent Zachariah Dutton and 
> Judith Parish married on 23 November, 1797 or 1798.  She
> wrote 1797 one time and 1798 in another place.  Anyone
> know which it is?  She also wrote that when this marriage
> took place there was a marriage contract as Judith was a 
> widow with children and property. They combined their 
> properties, but at death, each of the children would get 
> their own parent's property.  This sounds as if it were a 
> second marriage for each.  Did Zachariah Dutton who
> married the Penn lady, marry J. Parish later in life? 
> It does not seem too likely that his son, Zachariah would
> be in that type of situation only 23 years after his
> parents' marriage.  I don't yet have birth order for the
> Zach & Penn  children, but even if he were oldest......

From: James L. Dutton <DuttonNC@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Zachariah D. and Judith Parish
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:55:37 EDT

> This is the information that I have in regard to Zachariah
> Dutton's marriage to Judith Parrish.  They were married 
> on Nov 23, 1799.  This information was gleaned from records
> on file in Granville Co. N.C. with I visited a few years
> back.  She was the widow of Clayborne Parrish and had three
> sons.  A Woody (prob  Woodrow), Humphry, and Joseph.  I'll 
> check about the marriage date of Alexander and get back to
> you.  -- James

From: Judy Norwood Knight <Dokn@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Zachariah D. and Judith Parish
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 20:40:47 EDT

> James,
> If Zachariah was the father of our Samuel Sneed Dutton who
> married Elizabeth "Betsy" Threadgill, and Samuel was born
> in 1797, then was Judith his second wife? -- Judy

From: Rose M. Spencer <rspencer@soark.net> [now
Subject: Further speculation on Zachariah
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:26:27 -0000

> Nov 1988, I received some information by email from a 
> Robert A. Butler, Butler@PSS.Boeing.com.  [Rose, I certainly 
> hope you mean "1998"-- I didn't even know what e-mail was
> in 1988. Please clarify this. --JTR] Don't know if he is a 
> Dutton List Subscriber.  He sent me the following on Judith
> Parish, second wife of Zachariah Dutton:

> "I agree that Claiborne Parish married a cousin Judith Parish, 
> but don't believe it was Judith that was married a second
> time to Zachariah Dutton. The difficulty here is that there
> were two men named Claiborne Parish, about the same age.  
> One of them was the brother of Judith Parish, the other a 
> cousin.   This brother was the Claiborne who married an
> UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (not Judith Parish)  I show they had at
> least 3 children, Woody, Humphrey and Joseph. This Claiborne
> died before 1799 after which this UNNAMED spouse then married
> Zachariah Dutton in 1799. Claiborne and his sister Judith
> Parish were both children of David Parish and Judith Holland,
> who per David's will of 1789 also had 7 other known children
> (David, Booker, Sukey, Tabby, Betty, Sarah, and Ann).  Judith
> Parish's father David Parish was the son of Humphrey Parish
> and Mary ??. Judith Parish married her cousin Claiborne who 
> was b. abt 1760 and d. abt 1836/37 and was possibly the son
> of Anselm Parish.   Judith and Claiborne had 8 known children
> (William marr Mary Jones; Christina marr. Wm. or Mark Roberts;
> Patsy marr Seawell H. Moore; John Sion marr Celia
> Robards/Roberts; Elizabeth D marr Alfred N. Jones; Beeda 
> marr. Abraham Armistead/Umstead; Nancy marr Francis Worsham; 
> and Mary marr Jesse Mangum).  These children were named in
> his will dated 1834, several of them lived in Carroll Co.
> TN.

> The names Omah, Woody, Humphrey, and Joseph were not among 
> the children of Claiborne and Judith.  I am not aware that
> Judith married again, don't know if she died before or after
> Claiborne.   Another bit of info which bears on this are
> the war records of the two Claibornes and David. David 
> Parish and his son Claiborne served in the Rev. War, maybe
> together. The cousin Claiborne also served but in 
> different units and places. I have received this info from
> variety of sources, including one who is really good on the
> research but not 100% accurate on his conclusions and
> sometimes a little sloppy with detail.
> My connection is thru John Sion Parish who married Celia
> Robards/Roberts and their son Clairborne J. Parish
> who marr Judith Butler, dtr of John Butler."

> Just wanted to pass this on for consideration. 
> Does anyone else have anything on this possibility? 
>-- Rose Spencer

I agree that there is definitely some confusion surrounding
the Parrish-Parrish-Dutton (or however you want to explain
it) connection. I, too, have encountered the two Claiborne
Parrish's-- but it is at this point that my theory departs
from Mr. Butler's. After studying the Granville County court
records, I've come to the conclusion that although there are
multiple persons of the name Claiborne Parrish, there are
probably TWICE that number of women named Judith, Juda, or
Judy Parrish-- creating one huge mess, especially when
someone Judith Parrish marries someone named Claiborn

Mr. Butler's information appears to be very thorough and
sound, so I have no problem believing that all of his facts
are accurate, and backed up by at least circumstancial
evidence (isn't that what all of my facts are, anyway?). So
let me rehash (again) his account, this time adding my
thoughts; this should cause a few pieces to fall into place.

> "I agree that Claiborne Parish married a cousin Judith Parish,
[this referring to "the cousin" Claiborne Parish and Judith
Parrish, dau. of David and Juda]
> but don't believe it was Judith that was married a second
> time to Zachariah Dutton.
[at least, not THIS Judith Parrish. I agree with that-- you
seem to have pretty solid information on the descendants of
this couple.]
> The difficulty here is that there
> were two men named Claiborne Parish, about the same age.  
> One of them was the brother of Judith Parish, 
[this Claiborne and this Judith, brother and sister, the
children of David and Juda Parrish]
> the other a cousin. This brother was the Claiborne who
> married an UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (not Judith Parish)
> I show they had at least 3 children, Woody, Humphrey 
> and Joseph. This Claiborne died before 1799 after 
> which this UNNAMED spouse then married Zachariah Dutton
> in 1799.

Well, it looks like she's just been identified. It is very
clear in Granville County records who Zachariah Dutton
married second-- her name was Judith Parrish, a widow of a
Mr. Parrish. I have very little hard data linking this Mrs.
Judith Parrish to Claiborne Parrish. I do have the following
document, which I obtained from a compilation of various
Parish/Parrish records found in the USGenWeb FTP Archives
for Granville County. Its source is unclear-- all other
documents in the listing have clear citations, but this one
just begins "Parish Family": 

(File: parish1.txt)

Parish Family
Zachariah Dutton married Judith Parish, widow of Claborn
Woody Parish and Humphrey Parish were two sons of said
Claborn Parish.
David Parish owned the land involved, during his lifetime
and gave it to
Claborn Parish November 15th,1819.

The date at the end, obviously incorrect, tends to discredit
the entire record, unfortunately.

If what Mr. Butler said was true-- if the "unnamed" widow of
Claiborne Parish, son of David Parish, was the woman who
married 2nd Zachariah Dutton-- then we have both identified
this Claiborne's "unknown" wife and linked our Duttons'
step-mother to her family (or at least to her first
husband's family). Since Mr. Butler does have a record of
the children of "the brother" Claiborne Parish's children by
this woman-- Woody, Humphrey, and Joseph-- it appears we
have a definite match. At no point have I absolutely
concluded that this Mrs. Judith Parrish-Dutton's maiden name
was Parrish-- although I'm not completely convinced it's
not. With a name like Judith Parrish, anything is possible.

I have the following documentable records tying Zachariah's
Judith Parrish Dutton to the family of this Claiborn,
UNKNOWN WIFE, Woody, Humphrey, and Joseph:

Granville County Deeds:
6 Nov 1810 - Humphrey Parrish sold to Zachariah 1/2 part
of land descended from father Clayborn. 

Marriage books:
Zachariah Dutton marries Judith Parrish, 23 Nov 1798
[apparently the date in the marriage books]
- Leonard Henderson, bondsman; James Sneed, witness
[Here is the Sneed family for whom James' ancestor 
Samuel Sneed Dutton was named. Could there be a relation 
somewhere? Or were they just friends? According to land
records, Zachariah Dutton lived close to the Sneeds.]

Will Book 5:
p.57 - 14 Dec 1799 - Zachariah & Judith co-join estates
and be held jointly during marriage - at death relinquish
other's estate. Witnesses: Jno. Hall, Leonard Branson(?)
[abstracted--I feel they were married in 1799 because
of this record. Would not have waited a whole year to do 
this. Because of this agreement, I believe Zachariah 
and Judith had no children together.]

Whew! I'm exhausted! Anyway, I hope that takes care of that!
(Actually, it doesn't-- I don't feel any closer to an answer
now than I did before I started!) At least now, we have all
of our information together in one place! Robert, if you are
receiving this, do you have anything else to add?

Okay, now back to what I started out on: "Howell Dutton" in
the Granville County records. I think I had assumed "Howell"
was a mis-transcription of "Humphrey" and that this record
was referring to Mrs. Parrish-Dutton's son Humphrey Parrish.
But looking back, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
I'm in the dark on this one.

I really hate to go into my theorizing and speculating,
because an extra Dutton added into the pot this early in the
line would really complicate things! But I suppose I must.
It is quite possible that Judith Dutton was not as old as we
had assumed her to be, and that she did indeed bear children
to Zachariah Dutton. If they were married in 1798 or 1799,
and one or more children born in the next few years, they
could have indeed had a son buying and selling land in 1820.
Given solely this one record, that would be my likely
conclusion-- why else would the three be signing jointly if
they were not father, mother, and son?

Or, as Darlene suggested, I suppose this Howell could be an
OLDER son, by Zachariah's first wife. Then I would have to
ask why a 45-year-old man would need his father and
step-mother to co-sign a deed (unless the involved property
was for some reason in their names-- just the three of
them?) From what I have heard from James, it seems that
Zachariah's older set of children never got along very well
with their step-mother, and I find it odd that any of them
would have anything to do with her personal estate.

In either case, this Howell doesn't seem to appear anywhere
else except this record. He is not on any census before or
after 1820-- and he should have if he was born ca. 1774. If
he was born ca. 1800, he could get away with it-- assuming
he did precede his father in death, before 1829. As he is
not mentioned in Zachariah's will at all, he would have had
to in either case.

I disagree with the thought that Matilda was the wife of
this Howell. Zachariah's will clearly states "to MY DAUGHTER
Matilda" and makes no mention of any grandchildren other
than the children of his son John (presumably all born
before 1820: James and Thomas, as well an unknown daughter
and at least one unknown son.) They were not his only
grandchildren, but they were the oldest-- is that the reason
it seems Zachariah is making a special case for them? (His
will states the following: "First to pay & satisfy my just
debts, then to set apart the sum of one hundred and fifty
dollars to be kept on interest until the youngest child of
my son John shall become of lawful age, and then to divide
the amount equally amongst the children of my son John.") I
can imagine how Zachariah would be frustrated with his
oldest son William (at least, I'm still assuming that
William is the oldest) still not having brought him
grandchildren, and perhaps gave the largest part of the
inheritance to John and his heirs. Note that William
received "1/8 part subject to a deduction of $165" -- I
wonder how much that ended up to be? John himself only
received 5 shillings, as did Matilda. Jarrott took the
smallest deduction of $25, and Samuel took the largest--
$200. This calls to mind a certain episode with a frying
pan... ;)

Oh, yes-- back to Howell, and grandchildren. If this Howell
was somehow Zachariah's son, he apparently left no heirs, or
they would have been mentioned in Zachariah's will.

One final option, which struck me only a few moments ago.
Examine the following:

James Sneed, witness to marriage of Zachariah Dutton and
Mrs. Judith Parrish, 1798/99.
W. M. Sneed, witness to marriage of John Dutton, 1806
W. Sneed, witness to marriage of Stephen Dutton, 1818
--the other witness to this marriage was HOWELL Briggs.
And finally, what we started with:
Zachariah, Judith and Howell Dutton to William M. Sneed for
374 and 1/8 acres.
Zachariah named a son Samuel Sneed Dutton.
This Sneed family appears to be a pretty close connection...

Pure speculation: What if Mrs. Judith Parrish's maiden name
was Sneed? This would probably mean that Samuel Sneed
Dutton, whom we believe to be Zachariah's youngest son, was
the son of Judith-- which disputes some of the facts James
has given us. 
Or perhaps Zachariah was friends with the Sneed family, who
were close neighbors, when Samuel was born, and only after
the death of his first wife married into this Sneed family? 
Or, it's possible that Mrs. Judith Parrish was a BRIGGS, and
that Howell Dutton was her son, named for her father or
brother Howell BRIGGS? 
Or, even if she wasn't, this Howell Briggs seems to be a
friend-- perhaps Zachariah named a son Howell after him. 
Or maybe it wasn't Zachariah Sr. who was his father at all--
perhaps Howell was an unknown son of John, or of Zachariah,
Jr., who we know nothing about other than the fact that he
had at leat one son born 1800-1810?
Or, what's to even say that this entire DUTTON-PARRISH mess
isn't Zachariah Dutton Jr. marrying some widowed lady named
Judith? Maybe Zack Sr. wasn't involved at all. I know, I
know, I'm pushing things. Do note that no mention at all is
made of Zachariah Sr.'s second wife Judith in his will...

Or, it's entirely possible that this whole mess we've
stirred up here is, as I maintained before, a simple slip of
the Penn (errr... pen), and that "Howell Dutton" was
intended to be "Howell Briggs" or some other, equally
unfortunate individual. I really don't think we have enough
information to go any further at present.

Whew, I'm worn out. I'll continue answering questions
tomorrow, or maybe later tonight.

Brain running in circles,
Chasing its tail (or stem?),

Cousin Joseph

Leave a Reply