Land and location evidence of Reily- Warburton relatedness

South Carolina’s Department of Archives & History is testing a Beta version of the online index to their document archives. Some of the entries now have attached images of the actual documents. Some images are original documents, others are typescripts (perhaps WPA transcriptions?). I have recently found some interesting stuff, such as Samuel Reily witnessing the will of Thomas Baggs of Sumter District, 11 May, 1810.

I found an image of the plat for Robert Reily’’s 1764 land grant; I already had been given a copy of the grant document. Here is the link and my transcription follows:

State of South Carolina. Pursuant to a precept from John Troup Esq. DS & dated the 2nd day of Oct. 1764, I have laid out unto Robt. Reyley a tract Block containing one hundred acres situate in St. Marks Parish, N. side Santee River … Just… Baker’s Pond. Butting and bounding to the E. on Beng mn Johnson’s land. N on vacant land. W. on vacant land, and S on George Evins land Thence (?) hath such shape len… and width (?) as the above plat represents. Certified this 6th day of October 1764 James Cantey DS

Here is a link to the plat of Margaret Warburton’s land grant; and my transcription:

South Carolina. Pursuant to a precept from George Hunter Esq. late Surveyor General, dec’d dated the 7th day of August AD. 1753, as also an order from his Excellency the Governor, dated the 4th day of March 1755 Whereby, the time for executing the said precept can (?) prolong for six months from the date of the said order. I have … and laid out unto Margaret Warberton a tract of land containing one hundred and fifty acres. Situated in Craven County, on one of the S. Branches of Black River. Bounded on all sides on vacant land. & Hence hath such shape form and marked trees as appears by the above delineated plat. Certified February the 12th 1756 Jno. Lewisten D. S.

Discussion:

The will of Thomas Baggs places Samuel in South Carolina on 11 May, 1810, near the time of his land- seeking trip to Mississippi Territory. Furthermore, I suspect that this was a member of the Baggs family which lived near the Reily family on that 1773 map of South Carolina that I previously shared. This would agree with my suggestion that the “Baggs” on the map was a true family name and not a corruption of the “Bagnal” name.

The land grant to Robert was north of the Santee and that agrees with the Reily location on the map. Of course, half the state is north of the Santee River; Margaret’s grant was also north of the Santee. The grant of 100 acres to Robert was his individual head- of- house allotment and implied no other family members. The grant had been changed after 1755, to 100 acres for head and additional 50 acres for other members of the household, including slaves. Grants were changed to 100 for head] [I must check whether that was in the Welch Tract, as Robert originally petitioned] This plat does mention Baker’s Pond and that identifies it as the piece transferred by Lease & Release to Matthew Neilson, whose will addresses disposition of a piece of land at Baker’s Pond, originally granted to Robert.

Margaret Warburton was granted 50 acres for each member of the household: herself and daughters Ann and Sarah. Settlers arriving before 1756, received this amount, and it agrees with her petition for land. That took a long time; I don’t see how they kept from starving; Margaret’s petition was in 1752. If Margaret Warburton’s grant could be determined as identical to the Reily location on the 1773 map, this would lend support to a close family connection. The land was on a south branch of Black River, which fits the map, and also matches the Black River location documented in other records of the family. A plausible suggestion might be that Robert married Ann Warburton, sold his own land to Matthew Nielson and moved to his mother- in- law’s (Margaret Warburton). Sarah Warburton, the older sister, was already married and moved away, so the land could have gone to Ann and thus become the property of her husband, Robert. This is not proof, merely circumstantial evidence! Moreover, additional study needs to be done, comparing the Warburton grant to the Reily plantation.