BFHA-RC-000007
Research record and source registry for Bartholomew Ball. This archive entry preserves the corresponding publication section for website research review.
Publication excerpt:
BARTHOLOMEW BALL: William, Sr. Identifying the mother, or the date and place of birth of Bartholomew Ball, a Family Group Work Sheet, used by the members of the Mormon Church in recording their family’s history and genealogy, in the files of the Mormon Church Genealogical Library in Salt Lake City, Utah; put there by a descendant of William Bartholomew Ball, shows Bartholomew was born in 1706. 1 The place of his birth in all probability was St. Johns Parish, Berkeley County, South Carolina, as that is where his father lived and died and the records found on him prior to his removal to Craven County show him to be living in St. Johns Parish. Records show Bartholomew owned land in St. Johns Parish. He owned cattle and other live stock there in 1731 as attested by his live stock brands and marks being duly recorded and filed in St. Johns Parish. 2 He may have used a portion of his father’s 727 acre plantation to keep his cattle and other live stock. Bartholomew was living in Craven County in 1732 when, on 15 January, he was a witness to the will of Samuel Benoist. 3 On 13 February 1733, Bartholomew Ball of the Parish of Prince George Winyaw, Craven County, South Carolina, entered his brand, as shown in the margin, BB, and his ear mark being an under keel crop and slit in one ear and a figure of three in the other. 4 His brand in St. Johns Parish was B with ear marks being an under keel crop and slit in one ear and a figure three in the other. On 4 April 1733, Bartholomew Ball of St. Johns Parish, Berkeley County, planter, married Elizabeth Henlen in Prince Frederick Winyaw Parish, Craven County, South Carolina. The marriage bond of Bartholomew and Elizabeth Henlen suggests there was another older Bartholomew Ball as a bondsman. The phraseology of this document, which has been questioned by some, is such that it proves that Bartholomew Ball, the bondsman, and Bartholomew Ball the groom, are one and the same. Bartholomew Ball of St. Johns Parish, Planter, and Daniel Bourgett of Charles Town, Brewer, are held and firmly bound to His Excellency Robert Johnson, Captain General Governor and Commander in Chief, in and over this Province in the full and just sum of L2,000, 4 April 1733. The Condition of this obligation is such that whereas His Excellency the Governor hath this day under his hand and seal, licensed the Rev. Mr. Thomas Morritt to joy in the Holy State of Matrimony, the ABOVE-BOUNDEN Bartholomew Ball and Elizabeth Henlen. SIGNED: Bartholomew Ball, Daniel Bourgett. WITNESSES: Jno. Michie.5 The Correct interpretation of this document is crucial. The document is a standard printed form. The wording of this document tells us that we are dealing with only one Bartholomew Ball. The wording at the bottom portion of the document “____ licensed the Reverend Mr. Thomas Morritt to join in the Holy State of Matrimony, the ABOVE-BOUNDEN Bartholomew Ball and Elizabeth Henley ___”. By using the term “above bounden”, if we look above we can see that Bartholomew Ball is the only Bartholomew Ball listed above, therefore giving us only one Bartholomew Ball. Bartholomew Ball is shown as an adjoining property owner on Elizabeth Henlen’s plat for 500 acres on the Pee Dee River, Craven County, surveyed by John Jameson. 6 It is impossible to determine if this Elizabeth Henlen is Bartholomew’s wife or mother-in-law. Both were named Elizabeth. Most likely it was Elizabeth Henlen, Bartholomew’s mother-in-law because Bartholomew and Elizabeth Henlen were married 4 April 1733 and in 1735 she, Bartholomew’s wife, would have been known and was known as Elizabeth Ball. The land data is very misleading. Bartholomew had plats prepared for 1400 acres of land but was only granted 800 acres of land 1735 through 1773. In 1756, the year it appears that Bartholomew Ball applied for the three tracts granted to him, South Carolina was allowing 100 acres for the head of the household, if he had not already received land and fifty acres for each person in the household, if land had not already been received for them. This could include wife, children, slaves and servants.
[Excerpt; the full publication section is preserved in the BFHA source registry document.]