1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...

In this case Nathaniel seems to have committed the wrong accidentally. The suit was referred to a jury,
which ordered Nathaniel to reimburse Burton. There must have been some bad blood between the two in
court that day as a result of the trial, and some harsh words must have been exchanged, since on the same
day the suit was tried Nathaniel and Burton sued each other for defamation. After both defamation suits
were dismissed each of the two men petitioned that the other be taken into custody until each put up
security for good behavior. 256
* * * * *
Christopher Sadbury Defamation Suit
In a small society like that of 17 th century Accomack, where almost everyone knew everyone else,
reputation counted for a great deal. If a damaging rumor was allowed to spread it could affect all of one’s
relationships. If the rumor in some way touched upon one’s trustworthiness in financial dealings it could
potentially even be damaging to one’s livelihood, since so many financial transactions were conducted on
credit and relied upon the honesty of the parties involved. Aside from the mutual defamation suits he and
Burton filed against each other, Nathaniel was involved in only two such suits in the course of his life, both
of them as plaintiff. In one of them, which was tried before the court on 18 January 1677/8, he sued
Christopher Sadbury: 257
“Petition of Nath. Bradford: About 13 August, at Watchepregue in the hearing of several people,
Xophr. Sadbury sad that Bradford stole malt from him along with 50 pounds sterling worth of
goods. Sadbury also said that Bradford and his wife kept the key of the room where the goods lay,
and when they were done with the key, they threw it on the dunghill. Bradford was suing for 40
lbs sterling in damages.”
“Sadbury "submitted himself to the said Bradford" who accepted and discharged him. Ordered that
the suit be dismissed with Sadbury paying court costs. "I own I said that I had lost several goods,
but do not remember that I said as is charged in Mr. Nathaniel Bradford's petition. If I did, I am
sorry for it." Signed 18 January 1677/78, Christopher Sadbury”
In this particular case, Sadbury publicly retracted his statements. Nathaniel must have found this sufficient
for the purposes of his suit, as he discharged him without demanding the damages requested in his initial
petition.
* * * * *
Land in Delaware
In early 1679, Nathaniel purchased land from John Hagoster in Angola Neck on Rehobeth Bay in what is
now Sussex County, Delaware, at that time part of the colony of Pennsylvania. 258 In 1682, he resurveyed
his Sussex planation to include 1200 acres. 259 It’s doubtful that Nathaniel ever resided for very long on the
land himself, but there is evidence from Accomack that reveals time he probably did spend in Sussex. For 9
months in the period before 1682, his sons Nathaniel and William stayed with Florence Matts, who later
presented an account for their room and board in Accomack Court on 17 May 1682; 260 Nathaniel was
clearly away during this time, perhaps arranging his affairs in Sussex. After Hagoster’s acknowledgement
of the deed in 1679, Nathaniel’s only personal appearance in Sussex County court came in 1681, when he
was on a jury to judge a dispute over a wager on a horse race. 261
After purchasing the Sussex land, Nathaniel hired men to build a house and plant corn, both necessary if he
hoped to retain title. Shortly thereafter, Nathaniel’s servant John Daniell was his agent in a dispute with a
neighbor over land. In March 1682, Daniell made “forceable entrey” into the house of Nathaniel’s
Rehobeth neighbor Baptis Newcomb “and by force of Arms hath and still doth keepe [Newcomb] out of his
house and from making a Crop on the said Land”. 262 Evidently Newcomb had surveyed some portion of the
same land. Daniell pled by his attorney “that his master Nathanil Bradford have A right to the said Land”
and proved “that Nathanil Bradford did Clear part of the said Land and did plant sume Corn on the said
Clear Land, And did hire sume men to build A house on the said Land, which men did deceive him;
Mathias Everson sware that he did worke foure days on the said Land by order of Nathanil Bradfor
Towards the geting A frame for A house.” But Newcomb proved that he “built the first house on the said
Land, And Robert Bracey, Junor, sware that there never was any Corn Tended on the said Land by the said
Nathanil Bradford or his order.” One fact that seems clear from the above proceeding is that Nathaniel
Page 46 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford