The Heirs of William Cornett, 1815 Scott County, Virginia

The Library of Virginia website has a section called “Virginia Memory” and within this section are digitized copies of records from Virginia counties.  Not all counties have been digitized, but many have.  Records from Russell, Washington, Lee, and Scott Counties are available at the site.  The web address is http://www.virginiamemory.com/collections/chancery/.

The Scott County, Virginia records contain information about the Cornetts.  It is the transcriber’s belief that these are the same Cornetts who moved to Clay, Perry, and surrounding counties.  These transcriptions have been made so other interested researchers might read them also.  The page numbers match the pages within the digital file.  The first page of each file is an index card with the year, and surnames of people.  The actual documents begin on page 2.  Dann M. Norton

Scott Co: 1822-010           Heirs of William Cornett  v.  Admr of Wm Cornett etc.

Page 2

To the worshipful the Court of Scott County in chancery sitting humbly complaining herewith your orators Nathaniel Cornett, William Cornett, Samuel Cornett and Roger Cornett  That on the ____ day of ______ 1815 a certain William Cornett your orators father departed this life in said Scott County Virginia Intestate Leaving his widow and Relict Lucy Cornett Fielding Hensley and Nancy his wife who was Nancy Cornett Mary Cornett James Thomas and Sarah his wife who was Sarah Cornett the two latter residing in Henrico County Virginia John Brown and Lucy his wife who was Lucy Cornett in Floyd County Kentucky who together with your orators are the Heirs and the only Heirs of the said William Cornett dec’d

That administration of the Estate of the said William Cornett dec’d was by your worshipful court granted to the said Fielding Hensley who resides within the jurisdiction of your worshipful court and who as administrator etc Returned unto Court an inventory of said Estate the words and figures following to wit __________________ which is referred as part of this Bill.

Your Orators further state that although they are entitled to a Distribution share of the said Estate and have made demand thereof and were ready to give any assurance for (Page 3) the returns thereof the laws of the land required and although the said Fielding has collected the said Estate and has it now in his hands as your Orators are well informed That he refuses to give to your orator or distribute his or her share of the said Estate, All which is contrary to Equity etc.

The prayer of your orator is, that the said Fielding Hensley may be made defendant to this bill with all the others, heirs, except your orators, That the said Fielding may be compelled to render an account of the said Estate and fully answer the allegations hereof.

That the other defts may say what part if any of the estate they have rec’d and whether they are willing a settlement of the said Estate shall now be made etc.  They receive their distributive share of said Estate, And that such other and further relief may be extended to your orators as to Equity belongs and is suited to their particular circumstances of their case May it please your worshipful to Grant.

A.W.Henry

Page 4 is the back of bill dated 1819 Dec. Page 5 and 6: An exact copy of the bill except that the Orator’s name is changed from Nathaniel to Nathan, and it is signed by N Richardson. [A Nathan Richardson is listed on 1820 Scott Co census].

 

Page 7  State of Kentucky Clay County

This Day came Lucy Cornett being the widow of William Cornett Dec. 1815 in Scott county Virginia and Testified an oath that this is a trew bill given under my hand the 2th of February 1820

R S Brashears

Justice of the Peace for Sd County

 

Page 8 Answer of Mary Cornett 15 Dec 1819

The Separate answer of Mary Cornett to a bill in chancery filed in Scott County Court by Nathaniel Cornett and other Heirs of William Cornett dec’d against Fielding Hensley and other also heirs of the said William Cornett dec’d.      This deft saying the usual exceptions saith That she admits the allegations of the said bill to be correct and true.

That she wished a final settlement of the said estate to be made that each distributee may have his part or portion of the said estate.     This deft. Admits She has received from the said Fielding Hensley 15 dollars of the said estate for which she is willing to give credit out of her part or portion thereof.

And being fully answered the said complainants bill.

Mary Cornett

 

Scott County to wit

This day Mary Cornett made oath that the facts stated in the above answer are true so far as they depend on her own knowledge and where they depend on the information of others she believes them to be true.

Given under my hand the 15 day of December 1819.

W.F.[hard to decipher]

Page 9 Back of answer.

 

Page 10

Virginia

At Rules held in the Clerks Office of Scott County The 3rd day of January 1821

Nathaniel Cornett, William Cornett, Samuel Cornett, +Roger Cornett} Comps

Against

Lucy Cornett, Fielding Hensley + Nancy his wife, Mary Cornett, James Thomas + Sarah his wife, John Brown + Lucy his wife} Defts.

In Chancery

The defts not having filed their answer (except Mary Cornett who admits the allegations of the comps bill to be correct within three months after the complainants had filed their bill having also been sworn with a subpoena at least three months before the said time for filing their answers.  On the motion of the Compts by their counsel, the Court doth take their bill for confessed And will proceed at a future day to decree the matters therein contained Unless the said Defts on or before the second day of the Court Next after they shall have been served with a copy of this Order show cause to the Contrary.

Test. Jno S. Martin, DC

 

Page 11  Back of Conditional Decree

 

Page 12

At a court held for Scott County the 9th day of May 1815

Ordered that William Agee, William Forman, Robert Forman, Matthew Click or any three of them being first sworn before a justice for that purpose to appraise the estate of William Cornett deceased and return the appraisement under their hands to the court.

Test.  Alfred McKinney

Page 13 Back of order

 

Page 14

Your commissioner, to whom was referred the settlement of the accounts of Fielding Hensley administrator of the estate of William Cornett dec’d by an order of the worshipful the County Court of Scott dated on the 9th day of May 1821 [the transcriber believes this should be 1815], hath performed that duty and respectfully submits the following report.

It appears by the appraisement of the personal estate, that it was appraised to the sum of $90.93 ½ . I am informed by the adms. That said personal estate sold on the 9th day of September 1815 for the sum of $130.13.  In said appraisement is estate notes amounting to $264.33 Two of said notes the adms informed me were on Thomas Beard and payable in horses to wit one for $110.83 the other for $150 and that said notes were discharged in Horses as they became due valued to the amount which he states to have sold for much less than the amounts of said Notes as will appear from a statement below, also two other Notes one on Bartlett Anderson for L5.6.0 the Other on James Ham for fif

ty bushels of Corn, both of which Notes have not been collected and are herewith exhibited Marked A,

The Adms. Produced receipts for money paid in exchange of claims against Estate amounting to the sum of $7.98, an account for funeral charges proven by his own oath $10.00 and an account for expenses of sales etc sworn to by adm. $12.68 which accts etc are herewith exhibited and filed in a bundle marked B amounting in all to $30.64 which I have deducted out of the amount of sales and given interest on the balance, the account will properly stand thus.

 

The adms of William Cornett to his estate

To Balance arising from the sales of personal estate after deduction

$30.64 with interest up to this date}                                                                       108.08

To amount of Sales of horses received on notes for $10 [?] for $77

which together with Interest amounts to}                                                            97.20 ½

To amount of sales of horses received on note for $150 sold for

$98.25 which together with interest amounts to the sum of}                       113.38

323.67  [NOTE: Off by $5.01?]

 

The total amount of the estate being ascertained above which divided among the heirs (Nine in number including the adms.) amounts to the sum of $35.96 1/3 each.

The adms. Having produced claims against several of the heirs Your Commissioner has therefore made the following statement to (Page 15) show what will be due to each of them separately after deducting what has been paid them.

 

To Nathaniel Cornett      –              –              –              –              –              –              –              35.96 1/3

By Paid said Cornetts tax for 1813 as per ticket produced               $4.21

By paid same as per ticket sworn to                                                         $9.00

By Interest on above from the date of sale                                          4.64 1/3               17.85 1/3

Balance due Nathaniel                   $18.11

 

To Samuel Cornett          –              –              –              –              –              –              –              35.96 1/3

By paid Sheriff of Washington Cy as per ticket produced                                $0.63

By interest on same from date of sale                                                       .22 ½                   0.85 ½

Balance due Saml Cornett            $35.11

 

To Mary Cornett               –              –              –              –              –              –              –              35.96 1/3

By the sum paid her as per answer she admits                                   $15.00

By interest on same from date of sale                                                    $ 5.25                    20.25

Balance due Mary Cornett           $15.71 1/3

 

To John Brown –              –              –              –              –              –              –              –              35.96 1/3

By the sum paid for said Brown at the suit of Jno Wolf for his  Taxes

as per acct tendered and proven and tickets for [?] produced.} 12.50

By Interest on same from date of sale                                                    4.37 ½                   15.87 ½

Balance due Jn Brown                    $20.09

 

Tho most of the claims exhibited by the administrator against the Estate and heirs and accounts made out and proven by his own oath, there being no other evidence produced, Your Commissioner not being well satisfied whether said claims ought to be allowed without further proof begs leave to submit that Question to the Court.  The admr produced a small account against the Estate for services tendered amounting to $12.68 which is allowed in this settlement.  Your Commissioner is of opinion that further allowance of 5 percent would be a reasonable compensation for his trouble as administrator, which would reduce each heirs part to thirty four dollars sixteen +half cents.

All of which is respectfully submitted by me this 12 Day of Jan 1821

Jno. S. Martin, Comms

 

Page 16 Report of Commission

This report excepted to because the proof of credits allowed on defts oath being insufficient

Feb 14, 1822                                                                                                       A.W.McKinney

 

Page 17 Subpoena for Fielding and the defts, dated 1 Mar 1820. Page 18 Back of subpoena:

“Cornett heirs v. Cornetts heirs  Apr 1820”

“Executed on Fielding Hensley the rest are not Inhabitance of this county the 1st day of April 1820.”

  1. Gillenwater D for Jno. McKinsey, SC

 

 

Page 19

1815 The Estate of William Cornett decest

To the Sheriff Scott County

To Executing order of court for appraisement of the estate by William Agee  + others     1.20

Page 20 Back of receipt: Isaac C. Anderson, DS for John Anderson SSC

 

Page 21

John Wolf                            To Shff of Washington

1809                                       Caps in Hensley + Brown                              $1.24

C Tate, DS

 

Page 22

John Brown                        Tax 1805

1 levy  70 cts,  1 horse  12 cts                                                                       $ .82

1806       1 levy  97 cts, 1 horse  12 cts                                                        $1.09

1.91

D Gray, DS

Page 23 Back of receipt  “Jno Brown  1.91”

 

Page 24

John Brown                        Tax 1809

1 levy                                    93

2 horses                               24

$1.17

Received the above tax.                               C Tate

 

Page 25

Nathaniel Cornett                            Tax 1800

1 levy  1.14cts,  2 horses  24 cts                                   $1.38

1803  1 levy 1 levy  63 cts,  1 horse  12 cts                  .75

1804  1 levy  75 cts,  1 horse 12 cts                               .87

Land tax                                                                 .39

1805 1 levy 70 cts, 1 horse  12 cts                                 .82

$4.21

  1. Gray

Page 26 Back. N. Cornett 4.21  F Hensley to pay D Gray

 

Page 27

William Cornett

1811                       To Peyton Drew, Clerk of the General Court,

Dr. ______ cents, recording the Memorial of John Anderson

Deed to you       –              –              –              –              –              –              18

  1. Drew

Page 28 Back of receipt

 

Page 29

1799                       Samuel Cornett

To the Sheriff of Washington

Caps against Strong                                         .63

Wm Carson, DS

 

Page 30  Back of page

Sl Cornett                              63

                  78

1.41

1.46

                1.05

3.92

 

Page 31 Dated 1809 [A list of orders in a case with Fielding Hensley and John Brown]

Page 32 Back

John Wolf                              6.20

                -1.04

5.16

 

Page 33

The Estate of William Cornett Dec’d

1814                                       to Francis Reid   dr

May 24th               For repairs done on the mill while said Cornett kept it.   $4.50

Scott County  to wit

This day came before me Benjamin T. Hollins

A justice of the peace for said county Francis Reid and made oath that the above account is

Correct given under my hand This 8 day of Sept 1815

Benj. T. Hollins

Page 34 Back of acct

 

Page 35

William Cornett Dec’d Estate Dr

To Fielding Hensley administrator

To Expenses of Sale of property the 9th Sep 1815                                                                                               $3.50

“ Do of Sale of two horses the 9th Jan 1816 including feeding same nine days                          2.68

To Feeding four horses eight days and expenses of sale the 8th Jan 1817                                                  4.50

To receiving property + moving same from said Cornetts place to my house                          2.00     

$12.68

Page 36 Back of acct

 

Page 37

William Cornett Decd Estate

To Fielding Hensley administrator

To sundry articles furnished + services tendered for the funeral of said Wm Cornett        $10.00

Page 38 Back “Funeral charges”

 

Page 39

Nathaniel Cornett

To Fielding Hensley

To the sum paid Loving Bledsole for you                                                                                                                $3.25

“  Cash paid you                                                                                                                                                                  5.75

$9.00

Page 40 back

 

Page 41-42 [A list of dates for activities on Estate, the back signed by C.F. McHenry and Hiram Killgore.]

 

Page 43

John Brown one of the heirs of William Cornett deceased

To Fielding Hensley adms of the estate of said William Cornett deceased

~Amt of Clerks ticket yourself order        John Wolf                                                                            $5.16

~Do—Sheriff     Dr                      order          same                                                                                       1.26

Atty for ___ + Tax of writ        order        same                                                                                       3.00

~paid your tax for 1805                                                                                                                                    1.91

~paid your tax for 1809                                                                                                                                    1.17

12.50

 

Tickets is produced for the above except attorney fee + tax which said Hensley made oath to be correct.

J.S.Martin coms.

Page 44 back

 

Page 45

Samuel Cornett

To Fielding Hensley

To an order David Evans which you never accounted to me for –                –              –              –              $4.50

Cost of one attachment yourself against William Gardner             –              –              –                  .63

$5.12

 

Page 47

I promise to pay William Cornett the just and full sum of fifty Bushels of good merchantable corn to be paid against the 25 day of October next it being the value Received of him as witness my hand and seal This 20 day September [no year]

his

James                  X  Cain  <seal>

Test. Jacob Teeters                                                         mark

 

Page 49

I promise to pay or cause to be paid Unto William Cornett on his order—the full and just some of five pound six shillings corrant money of Virginia to which payment Three pound six shillings to be paid the first day of October next Two pound the first day of May in the year 1786 it being for Value Recvd of him as witness my hand this _____ day of May 1785.

James Arnold                                                                                                     Bartelot Anderson

Corrected Family of Robert & Rebecca Hughes Gott

This is another article that I wrote in 2009 but never published.  It is part of a larger collection of articles on the Gott family that I compiled together and titled, “Gotts as I Got ’em.”  New research will update (and change) previous assumptions.  This article is posted to help confirm and explain how Robert Gott (b. 1783) was married to two women–Rachel  Cole and Rebecca Hughes.  It also corrects the names of their known children.

Robert Gott and Rebecca Hughes: The corrected family structure

      On 28 June, 1997, I wrote to several researchers with information that lined out the structure of Robert and Rebecca (Hughes) Gott’s family, ascertained that this same Robert was first married to Rachel Cole, and corrected mistakes about his and his wife’s ages.  An update was sent out the next year.  The details of that letter are included in this chapter.  It is hoped that future genealogists will correct the erroneous data that fills the internet about this Robert Gott.

       According to the Latter Day Saints International Genealogical Index, Robert Gott who married Rebecca Hughes was born in 1805 to Robert Gott and Lydia Nichols.  As has been stated and repeated many times in this work, no record—census, or otherwise, shows a Robert Gott born in 1805 who could be a child of Robert and Lydia.  It is therefore important that researchers see that Robert Gott and his wife, Rebecca, are listed in several Montgomery County, Indiana census records, and his birth year is 1781.  This birthdate completely negates any idea that Lydia Nichols could be his mother as she was not married to a Gott until 1800.  I do believe from family stories and county histories that Robert Gott born in 1781 is the son of Robert Gott, the Revolutionary War veteran and a previous, and still unnamed wife. That would make Lydia Nichols Gott the step-mother of the Robert of this chapter.

         The first point of evidence is the parentage of Preston Gott, born about 1826.  According to the 1860 Montgomery County, Indiana census, and Beckwith’s county history biography of George Gott, Preston Gott is the son of Robert and Rebecca Hughs(sic) Gott.  Preston is listed as 34 years of age in 1860 with his family.  Included in this household are Robert Gott, age 79, and Rebecca Gott, age 72.  This fixes the birth years of Robert and Rebecca at 1781 and 1788 respectively.  That Preston is the son of Robert and Rebecca is verified in the biography of George Gott who is named as a son of Robert and Rebecca.  Preston is listed as a surviving brother out of nine children.  (This mention of nine children will be of significance in the proper placement of other Gott children.)

       The next point of consideration comes from Preston’s obituary in the May 30, 1913, edition of the Crawfordsville Journal.  In it Dr. William T. Gott is listed as his nephew. Dr. William T. Gott was the son of William and Rhoda Swindler Gott.  He was born Mar 18, 1855 (Indiana death certificate).  A detailed history of Dr. Gott was included on page 317 of Beckwith’s history, and also on pages 148-150 in a lesser known work called Men of Progress. Indiana. Edited by Will Cumback and J.B. Maynard, copyrighted 1899.  In the Cumback work, two paragraphs are dedicated to the ancestry of William and Rhoda Swindler Gott. “His paternal grandmother’s name was Coal.”  This quote indicates that his father’s father, who would be Robert Gott, was married to a woman surnamed Coal. 

      On 12 October, 1802, Robert Gott married Rachel Cole, daughter of William Cole, in Shelby County, Kentucky.  This marriage would produce six children.

       The relationship between Dr. William T. Gott and his uncle, Preston Gott, requires that Preston Gott be a brother to William Gott md. to Rhoda Swindler.  The previous paragraph establishes that William Gott’s mother was Rachel Cole.  County histories verify that Preston’s mother was Rebecca Hughes.  Therefore, both men were half-brothers and sons of Robert Gott.

      Robert Gott married Rebecca Hughes on 9 October, 1823, in Shelby County, Kentucky.

      The 1810 census of Shelby County, Kentucky shows the household of Robert and Rachel Cole Gott:

1m 26-45 (Robert), 1f 26-45 (Rachel), 3m under 10, 1f under 10.  (3sons, 1 dau.)

      In 1820, the household included more children:

1m 26-45 (Robert), 1f 26-45 (Rachel), 3m 10-16, 1f 10-16, 3f under 10. (3sons, 4 daus.)

      Assuming that each tick mark represents a child, Robert and Rachel had at least seven children, three sons and four daughters, by 1820. 

      Rachel Cole Gott died prior to October 1823, when the marriage to Rebecca Hughes took place.  Around 1828, Robert and Rebecca took their family to Montgomery County, Indiana.

      Family structure of Robert and Rebecca Hughes GOTT in 1830 Montg. Co, IN census:

1m 40-50 (Robert), 1f 20-30 (Rebecca), 2m 20-30, 2f 10-15, 1f 5-10, 2m under 10.

                  ^above is probably a mistake by census taker

 

      At this point, it is difficult to decipher if the female age 5-10, born 1820-25 is the last child of Rachel Cole, or the first child by Rebecca Hughes.  In the next census, no daughters are listed, so it might be that the daughter in question was older, about 8 to 10, and perhaps married by 1840.  Several Gott women do marry between 1830 and 1840.

      Family structure of Robert and Rebecca Hughes GOTT in 1840 Montg. Co, IN census:

1m 60-70 (Robert), 1f 50-60 (Rebecca), 2m 10-15, 1m 5-10, no daus.  (The male 5-10 would probably be a grandchild, given Rebecca’s age, but could be her son Robert, born about 1831.)

      All together, the censuses indicate that Robert and his two wives had at least nine children, and possibly 11.  It is important to note that the history of the Elizabeth Gott Skelton states that after she moved to Montgomery County, about 1832, she could not care for her children and they lived with relatives and neighbors. It is possible that some of the tick marks on the census records represent other persons.

      Based on the census reports, Robert should have a son and a daughter who married between 1820 and 1830.  The Montgomery County, Indiana records show twenty Gott marriages before 1850.  Only two of these marriages occurred before the 1830 census:

      Rebecca Gott to James Mount, 1 December, 1829

      Thomas Gott to Elizabeth VanCleave, 28 February, 1830.

 

It fits best to place these two Gotts as the daughter and son of Robert and Rachel Cole Gott.  (This Thomas md. to Elizabeth VanCleave has often been listed as the son of Robert and Lydia Nichols Gott, but in light of errors on the LDS IGI, and with a better Thomas as candidate for the son of the Revolutionary War veteran, it seems more probable that Thomas md. to the VanCleave belongs to Robert and Rachel Cole Gott.)

 Between 1830 and 1840, Robert Gott’s household lost two males and two females.  There are seven marriages in the same time period, but it needs to be remembered that about 1827, Thomas and Nancy Russell Gott of Shelby County, Kentucky, had moved into Montgomery County with children of marriageable age.  Some of those seven marriages will be Thomas’s children and discussed in a separate chapter.

      Of the marriages, some can be definitely placed with Robert’s family:

      William Gott to Rhoda Swindler, 16 September, 1831

      Nancy Gott to John Swindler, 5 February, 1833

      Eliza Jane Gott to Paris Conner, 9 September, 1836

       Descendants of John and Nancy Gott Swindler claim that Nancy Gott was a sister to William Gott, and that John Swindler was a brother to Rhoda Swindler.

       The 1881 Beckwith history of George Gott states that his sister, Eliza, was still living at that time.

       Possible children of Robert Gott based on marriage records in Crawfordsville, Indiana include:

      James Gott to Ann Jones, 17 November, 1831

      Jonathon Gott to Margaret Harris, 12 February, 1834

      Martha Gott to Joel H. Hampton, 16 November, 1836

      Ann Gott to Joseph Stubbins, 1 February, 1838

       Ann Gott is probably Ann Jones Gott, widow of James Gott.  In early 1830s, she and James Gott are selling land in Shelby County, Kentucky.  By 1837, she is selling it alone, which may indicate James had died. Based on the 1840 census, she probably had one son by Gott, then several children by Stubbins.  She died before March 1848.

       Rounding out Robert’s family

Family of Robert and Rachel Cole GOTT

1. Rebecca Gott md. to James Mount

2.  Thomas GOTT b. 1804, md. Elizabeth Van Cleave  (LDS says son of Robert/Lydia)

3.  William GOTT, md. Rhoda Swindler

4.  m

5. Nancy Gott, md. John Swindler

6. Eliza Jane, md. Paris Conner

7. f

 Family of Robert and Rebecca Hughes GOTT:

 8.  Preston GOTT

9.  George GOTT

10. Robert GOTT (listed 1850 census with Robert and Rebecca) md. Rachel DOYLE.

       By my calculations using the early census records, I’m missing two daughters of Thomas Gott and one son and one daughter of Robert.  I cannot guess to which father James and Jonathan Gott belong, however, Jonathan does seem to have a connection to the Sullivan County, Indiana Richard Gott.  Martha Gott Hampton is also unplaceable at this time, however, her family does show up in Iowa in later census records.  Unfortunately, it looks as if Martha died and Joel remarried.

 

McAtee Legends: Patrick McAtee, Immigrant

Patrick McAtee was (probably) an immigrant from Ireland.  He was (probably) not an indentured servant.

The common tale is that Patrick McAtee, with brothers, Edmund and Henry, arrived in Maryland onboard the Bachelor of Bristol in 1674.  The problem is that the manifest does not list any McAtees.  The whole theory is built on the idea that Patrick, Edmund, and Henry MAGEE, were actually McAtee. Patrick then ends up in Charles County—although no record of his indenture to anyone.  Edmund ends up in Talbot county—again no record that he had an indenture.  Patrick named a son Edmund, Edmund named a son Patrick.  From these coincidences, the whole hypothesis takes off.  But, there is nothing in the records that supports or confirms the theory. There is never any mention of Henry.

There is no actual proof that Patrick Magee listed on the ship Batchelor, arriving in 1674 in St. Mary’s Co, MD, is or ever was Patrick Maccatee/Maggottee.  The name Maccatee and Maggottee  is also spelled McAtee in early Maryland records.  It has been misspelled as McTee, McCarter, and even, Watee, in published derivatives of other records.

We know that misspellings of a name can occur.  Is that what happened with the 1674 ship’s list?  It’s possible, but seems doubtful.  It seems doubtful because there are other Irish-sounding names that include the Mc- prefix. The ship’s manifest lists 90 names and of them, there are several names beginning with M.  They are in the table below.  Note many Mc-surnames.

 

Magee

Mackmaikin

Mackelgar

Mahatton

Mackahee

Mercer

Magumery

Mackvey

Macalman

Magnaid

Mackneele

Morrison

MackDaniell

Mackmullen

MackCharmen

MackChoy

MackClarty

Mackgowen

Mackgnaid

Milihan

Mackholister

Musterd

Macknoole

 

 

If the clerk writing these names could

clearly spell out MACK on names like

MackDaniell and Mackgowen, then why

would he not spell McAtee with a Mack

prefix?  Mackatee would be a logical

spelling.  Indeed, a Robert Mackahee does

appear, and that is, at least when counting

syllables, closer than Magee.

 

It is clear that whoever wrote the list could sound out and spell Irish sounding names.  It is also clear that he was absolutely able to hear Mack on at least 15 surnames.  Why would we assume he could not hear the Mack on McAtee, and thus wrote down Magee?

The Real Patrick Magee

Weakening the supposition that Magee is McAtee, is a man named Patrick Magee.

There was a Patrick Magee in nearby King George County, Virginia, who made his will on 5 Feb, 1724/25.  Magee researchers would like to lay claim to the immigrant on the Bachelor  as their ancestor.  He cannot be both the patriarch of the McAtees and of the Magees.  Who holds the better claim to the man?  I would say, those with the same last name.   But, it is also possible the immigrant is the ancestor of neither family.

CAUTION

The theories of well-meaning genealogists and historians before us have now been assumed as fact.  They are not proven facts.  These assumptions do little to help our quest for family origins, if we are not continually rechecking and verifying the validity of such claims.  Today, one will find this story of an indentured servant, Patrick Magee, being Patrick McAtee retold on nearly every online website that lists the McAtee family.   Patrick seems well established with wealthy families in Charles County.  I do not see any reason to assume he was an indentured servant, but I see nothing that debunks he was.  It is just not known.   We only assume he is an immigrant because there are no McAtee records in Charles County prior to those concerning Patrick, his wife Rosamond, and their children.

The links below take you to transcriptions of records concerning the Bachelor passengers, an online forum where someone has believed the indentured servant story–and how it seems plausible–but the whole story is built on someone else’s good guess.

http://files.usgwarchives.net/md/somerset/history/area/batchlo3.txt

http://www.network54.com/Forum/10631/message/1442848975/Clear+as+mud… –what patent?

https://www.houseofnames.com/magee-family-crest/Irish –lists Edmond as a Magee, does not list Patrick.