83. Cassandra HARDIN12 was born on 5 September 1778.5,18 She died before March 1799 at the age of 20.5
I found Cassandra Listed as 6th child, and 6th daughter.
Received 200 acres of land adjoining her cousin Katy Thomas in the will of her grandfather John Hardin - land on Lost Run of a branch of Rough Creek.
Cassandra HARDIN and William HARDIN Jr. were married on 8 February 1798 in Washington County, Kentucky.5,37 William HARDIN Jr.2, son of WILLIAM HARDIN and WINIFRED ANN HOLTZCLAW, was born on 3 August 1781.18 He died on 24 September 1850 at the age of 69 in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky.18
17 Mar 1800. William Hardin, Jr gave bond for surety for the office of sheriff of Breckinridge Co KY. INVENTORY OF THE COUNTY ARCHIVES OF KENTUCKY; No. 14; Breckinridge County; by KY Historical Records Survey Project, WPA.
Even though Jr.'s birth year is seen as 1781, I question this date - he seems to already be age 21 by 1800 as he is giving a security bond and was also counted in the tax lists. He also married at an early age [16 - a bit unusual] so perhaps as a married man was considered an adult.
1800 Tax LIsts. Breckinridge Co, KY
William Hardin Sr, William Hardin, Jr., Henry Hardin, Daniel Hardin
Interesting that John E. Hardin, thought to be one of the older sons was not listed.
1810 Census, Breckinridge Co
William Harden Jr. 2m -10, 1m 26-45 [William]. 2f -10, 1f 26-45.
According to a descendant's entry in THE HARDEN-IN-ING NEWSLETTER, Vol. 17, #2, June 2000, p.67, Cassandra died shortly after the birth of their only child. He was married at least two more times, maybe three.
Breckinridge Co KY Court Orders, Vol. 3
20 Oct 1814 p.35 Thomas Kincheloe, Compt vs. William Hardin Junr Def Defendant “came not” & to pay costs
Thur Apr 20 1815 p. 75 William Hardin Junior, Plaintiff against Greenberry Williams & others… Dismissed by order of the Plaintiff.
Wed Jul 19 1815
p.113 Thomas Wilson, Plaintiff against William Hardin … To recover $40.68 plus interest since 16 Nov 1814.
p. 114 William Hardin Junior agst Barney Miller Dismissed
p.121 William Hardin Junior against Benjamin Ford. [There was a jury, nothing decided – put to arbitration. Could not tell what this case was about.]
p.129 Jul 20 1815 Leonard Wheatley agst William Hardin Junr & Others
This day came the parties aforesaid by their attornies and on the motion of the Complainants and having filed an affidavit agreeably to the rules of this Court. This cause is Continued at his costs. It is therefore considered by the court that the Defendants recover their costs expended in Conveyance of the Continuance may have execution.
Tues Oct 17 1815 p.145 William Hardin Junior Plaintiff vs. Benjamin Ford Awarded to plaintiff $7.06 ½ in damages and costs
Wed Oct 18 1815 p.161 William McW. Harwood, plaintiff against William Hardin Jr.
Jury seated. Assessed the Plaintiff $5 besides the Costs. Plaintiff recover against the Defendant $5 the damages aforesaid
Tues Apr 16 1816 p.212 Benjamin Ford Plaintiff vs. William Hardin Jr. Plaintiff recover $100 the debt mentioned on the petition with interest from 20 Feb 1815.
Wed Oct 23 1816 p.314 Thomas Wilson, Plaintiff vs. William Hardin, Junior Plaintiff recover $150 debt plus interest
[Many suits against Wm Hardin Jr. for debts. Did not get them all.]
Fri. 24 Oct 1817 p.464 William Hardin Junior Complt against William Hardin Senior & others. Continued.
Breckinridge Co KY Court Order Book, Vol 4, Jul 20 1818 – Jul 22 1820
[Wm Hardin Jr against Wm Hardin Senr and the heirs of Samuel Baird whose guardian was John Sterett]
Tues Jul 20 1819 p.187 William Hardin Junior, Complt vs. William Hardin Senior and the heirs of Samuel Baird, defendants,
This day came the Defendant William Hardin Senior & ……. By answers in Court to the interrogatories put to him in the Cross bill of Bairds heirs against the Complt & said William Hardin Senior. And Swore to the same in Court and by motion the Same is ordered to be filed.
Circuit Court Order Book 4, p.215. Wed. 21 Jul 1819. Ephraim Comstock sued William Hardin (Jr or Sr - impossible to tell, but most likely Jr given the next case) for Trespass Assault & Battery. The jury found in favor of Ephraim and assessed damages to Hardin for 1 Cent plus costs.
Fri Jul 23 1819 p.234 William Hardin Junior Pltff against Ephraim Cumstock Deft
This day came the parties aforesaid by their attornies and the defendant filed a plea of not guilty to which the plaintiff filed a joinder. Therefore let a Jury come here & Whereupon Came a Jury towit. Jubal Board, Jacob Clemmons, Charles Ballou, William Williams, Benjamin Green, William Board, John Patterson, Frances W. New, John Dejernet, Courtney Atkins, James Irwin & Winson Lowry who being elected tried and sworn well and truly to try the issue joined upon their oaths do say that the Deft is not guilty in manner and form as plaintiff against him hath complained. It is therefore considered by the Court that the Pltff take nothing by his bill but for his false Claims be in ….. and that the defendant recover of plaintiff his costs.
Note. In the progress of the trial of this cause the Pltff filed a bill of exception to the opinion of the Court which was Signed and Sealed and Ordered by the Court to be made part of the record in this cause.
Hardin appealed to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky and the case was heard 6 Oct 1820. He filed on the grounds that the writ charging trespass, assault and battery, written by William Allen, attorney for Ephraim Comstock, also falsely and maliciously charged him with robbing "Cumstock" of $500 in silver. Allen admitted that he was employed to bring action for assault and battery and had added the robbery without direction from Cumstock.. Cases were cited showing that libel cannot be charged for averments in a writ during the course of justice, as well as the client cannot be held responsible for actions of his attorney. No evidence was introduced to show that Comstock himself ever uttered or published slanderous matter. Judge Owsley delivered the opinion that the judgement of the lower court would stand. Another Hardin, probably a kinsman, was the lawyer for William Hardin. [Reporter: 9 Ky. 480]
Fri Jul 23 1819 p.235 Wm Hardin Junior agst Wm Hardin Senier
This day came the parties aforesaid by their Council And in the motions of the attorney on behalf of Bairds …… leave is given them to take …..the deposition of theirs by Deft Wm Hardin Senior to be evidence on their behalf. And therefore this cause is continued until the next term.
Sat Jul 24 1819 p.244 Wm Hardin Junior Pltff against Ephraim Comstock Deft
This day came the parties aforesaid and the Pltff prayed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which is granted him upon his entering into bond in the Clerks Office of this Court with Robert Stephens his Security in the penalty of $100 within 20 days conditions agreeably to Law. [See notes earlier for the outcome of this case.]
Wed Oct 20 1819 p.282 Grand jury presentment against Wm Hardin Junr for profane swearing on which the fine and cost is paid in Court
Thur. Oct 21 1819 p.296 Wm Hardin Jr. agst Wm Hardin Senior & others defts.
Cross bill of Samuel Baird. Not sufficient time taken until tomorrow to advise….
p.299 Wm Hardin Junior Complt agst Wm Hardin Senr etc. Defts.
On yesterday this cause came on upon the bill …depositions and all the exhibits filed in this cause the argument of Council was heard on both sides and the Court took time to consider and upon this day delivered in the following decree. It is ordered and decreed by the Court that the heirs of the said Baird and William Hardin Senior survey to the Complainant the two lots in the bill mentioned with deed of special warranty warranting the lots to the said Complainant from them their heirs and all claiming under therein. It is further decreed and ordered that the heirs of said Baird recover of the said William Hardin Junior the Sum of $150 the amount the said Baird paid for said lots with interest therein from the 15th day of Apr 1814 until paid. It is further decreed and ordered that the heirs of said Baird recover of William Hardin Senior the value of the improvements which were put on said lots by said Baird and that the said heirs account and pay to William Hardin Senior the value of the rents & profits since said Baird was …unto possession of said lots. It is further decreed and ordered that William Hardin Senior recover of the Complainant whatever sum shall be found against him in favour of Baird's heirs for improvements after adduction therefrom of the amount of rents and profits decreed to the said William Hardin Senior. It is further decreed and Ordered that Stephen Chenault, John Murray and William Miller be appointed Commissioners the three or any two of them to go upon the lots in dispute and value the improvemnts and rents & profits as in this decredd is directed and make report to this Court until which time this cause is continued and the question of Costs is reserved.
Sat Apr 22 1820 p.374 William Hardin Junior Complt agst Wm Hardin Senior & heirs of Samuel Baird defts
This day came the parties aforesaid by their Council and the Commissioners report being made and returned in the words & figures following to wit. “Agreeably to the decree of the Breckinridge Circuit Court pronounced in the Suit in Chancery of William Hardin Junior and William Hardin Sen and the heirs of Saml. Baird Decd. Etc. the under figured. John Murray & Wm. Miller met on the premises on this the 20th day of April 1820 having notified the parties of the time and place of meeting and being duly qualified and Sworn proceeded to value the improvements put upon the Lots in the Bill mentioned by Said Baird. And we are of Opinion that the improvements made by said Baird were worth when put upon the premises $308.00
We are also of the opinion that the rents …from 15 Apr 1814 until this time…Baird obtained the possession of the same are worth the sum of $290.00
Given under our hands & seals this 20th Apr 1820 John Murray, Wm Miller.
…heirs of the said Samuel Baird Decd in addition to ….decreed at the last term….recover against the defendant William Hardin Senior the Sum of $18 the difference between the value of the improvements …rents and profits…each party pay their costs…
Will Hardin Junior, Complt appealed
This case was taken to Court of Appeals of Kentucky where it was heard 9 Oct 1821. The decrees were reversed and the cause remanded [sent back to the lower court] with directions. William Hardin, Jun. to recover costs of all appeals. The lawyer for Hardin was listed simply as "Hardin", quite possibly one of his cousins. Serial Set 16 Ky 340. Also recorded next.
Breckinridge County KY Circuit Court Orders Oct 16, 1820 – Oct 26, 1822
Court of Appeals Oct 9 1821
James Baird, Sterett Baird, Rebecca Baird & John Baird by John Sterett their guardian against William Hardin Junior On an appeal from a decree of the Breckinridge Circuit Court.
Wm Hardin Jr appellant against James Baird, Sterett Baird, Rebecca Baird, & John Baird infant heirs of Samuel Baird dec'd & Wm. Hardin Sr. On an appeal from a decree of the Breckinridge Circuit Court
William Hardin Jr. against John Sterett adm. Of Saml. Baird dec'd
….William Hardin Junr against his father William Hardin & Samuel Baird …he had purchased 2 Lots in Hardinsburg (21 & 24) for 100 pounds….he had conveyance for lots executed by Friend McMahon the vendor to said William Senr. Afterwards took bond from said Wm Senr for a conveyance of said lots which he exhibited…bond conveyed these lots and others and one or more tracts of land…..his father sold and conveyed said Lots to Samuel Baird without his consent unfairly…..Charges that Baird had full knowledge of claims. Wm Junr forewarned Baird not to prove or meddle with the Lots….Baird died after execution of the subpoena and before answer.
Guardian was appointed for his heirs, all infants. Answer of the Guardian admits legal title & possession to be with the infant heirs and the purchase from Wm Sr. professes ignorance of the title on the bill and denied notice to Baird before his purchase….asks what consideration passed between Wm. Sr & Jr for the bond aforesaid….and whether Wm. Sr. did not pay unto Jr. abour $40 satisfaction for his interest in the lots and therefore his claim whole or in part satisfied. ….further alleges that a certain Mrs. Merry also purchased the lots at a Sheriffs sale under execution against both Wm. Sr. & Jr. and calls upon her for her claim. Further requires of Sr. & Jr. to say whether they had not conversed and concluded that if the complainant recovered the lots he the said Wm Jr would have to pay only the purchase money & interest to Baird and the lots were risen in value…..He prays that if the claims of Mrs. Merry or the complainant shall prove superior, that Wm Hardin Sr may be compelled to pay the full increased value of the lots and one or both of them made to account for the improvements made by Baird.
Wm Jr. replied that he purchased the lots from Friend McMahon and the deeds were made to his father in trust for him. That the bond of his father was executed to without any other consideration than the trust and his father had no power to dispose of the lots. Alleges that the purpose of the trust was entirely unnecessary to be stated as the purpose or object had ceased long before the sale to Baird. Denies he ever sold his claim to his father or ever received $40 or any other sum in whole or part satisfaction. …Admits that his father after the sale to Baird came to his house in his absence and offered $40 to his wife….Wife refused to receive it; father left it against his wifes consent, where it has since remained ready to be returned on application. He has no recollection of any conversation with his father about damages that might be recovered if he gained the estate. As to Mrs. Merry, he alleges she made the purchase under execution for his benefit and with his money…..she has since suit brought, relinquished her title & he exhibits a deed …She states the same matter in substance and disclaims any further interest.
Guardian calls on the said Jr. & Sr. to say whether the deed was not made by McMahan to Wm. Hardin Sr. by directions from Wm. Hardin Jr. for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of Jr. and if it was not to delay them in collection of their demands and that they be compelled to show that the legal title of said lots was ever out of Wm Sr. as proprietor of the town, before the conveyance to him from McMahan.
Wm. Hardin Jr. responded that title was made to Sr. from McMahan but denies that the same was made for the purpose of defrauding creditors or to hinder or delay them. On the contrary asserts that he has not at that time a recollection of any Demands existing against him “nor was her ever found insolvent but had always been able to pay off his Debts, tho like other men he had been hard run. He never by any fraudulent devices or conveyances or shifts delayed or defrauded his creditors”
Wm Sr in answer to interrogatories admits the purchase of Wm Hardin Junr from McMahan and conveyance to him by his sons direction and his bond to his son without any other consideration than the trust. Admits sale and conveyance to Baird & the $150 paid by Baird. He alleges that he was the proprietor of the town and that the title of the whole was originally in him….That by the burning of his house most of his papers were destroyed and that he could not find that he had ever parted with the Lots before he sold to Baird. Therefore he could be be under abligation to convey to his bond to Wm. Jr. if it was given through mistaken believe that the Lots were not his when McMahan had conveyed them to him. That he had since found that he had sold & conveyed one but not the other before the purchase of Wm. Jr. from McMahan. Further alleges that Jr. had sold the said 2 lots to Martin Hardin and had received as he understood the purchase money except for about $40 and Martin Hardin had sold them to Kinchloe & received part of the price. Owing to death of Martin Hardin no conveyance was made alth he had orders of Jr. to convey them first to Martin Hardin & then to Kinchloe. That understanding $40 was the balance claimed by Jr. on said lots. When he sold to Baird he took $40 to the home of Jr. & paid it to his wife who generally did the business of Jr. in his absence. Denied any particular converstion with Jr. …Relative to the damages that could be recovered against him by Bairds heirs he sates that the reason was title was made to him was his son was at the time somewhat embarrassed and declares he received the Deed to prevent the lots falling a sacrifice to creditors and the lotts were conveyed to him to delay creditors of his son. And that he never did conceal the trus history of the transaction.
During progress of suit Wm Hardin Jr. exhibited an amended bill stating he had rented one of the lots from the guardian of infants of Baird & given his note for the rent on which he was sued & judgment obtained. As he believed the lots to be his, and he was entitled to the rent & should recover as Bairds estate was doubtful & could not discharge the demands against it. He prayed & obtained an injunction on the Judgment and prayed a discount of the Judgment against the rents.
The Court decreed Bairds heirs & Wm. Hardin Sr. should convey the lotts to the Complainant by Deed with special warranty against all claiming under them. That the heirs of Baird should recover the original purchase money with interest of Wm Hardin Sr. and also the improvements made by Baird, after deducting the rents. That Wm. Hardin Sr. recover of Jr. whatever sum was recovered against the said Sr. by Bairds heirs for improvements after rents were deducted. Commissioners were appointed to make an assessment of rent during the occupancy of Baird heirs or their ancestry. And also of the improvements made by Baird. They reported the rents $290 and improvements $308. Final decree entered for $18 the difference in favor of Bairds heirs against Wm Hardin Jr. Nothing further is said in the final decree about Sr. recovering that sum against Jr. as was directed by interlocutory Decree. Each party was direct to bear his own costs. On the amended Bill the Court dissolved the injunction with damages & costs & dismissed the amended bill. From this decree Bairds heirs & Jr. both appealed. On the subject of Baird having purchased with knowledge of equity of Jr. the proof is abundant and he was cautioned by wife of Wm Jr. & when he went to take possession he was cautioned by Wm Jr. not to improve. As to the purchase of Mrs. Merry it does not appear whe ever received the conveyance of the Sheriff. If she did her claim is certainly extinguished and the recovery of complainant cannot be obstructed. As to sale to Martin Hardin & by him to Kinchloe, it is shown by the deposition of Kinchloe that there was such a sale, but he does not state terms. It was only a verbal contract & not completed after the death of Martin Hardin. Kinchloe deposes that Wm. Jr. had agreed unconditionally to restore him the money he had paid to Martin Hardin & which Martin Hardin had paid to Wm. Jr. This matter can furnish no relief to the complainant. It is shown that Wm. Sr. had sold & conveyed bother of the lotts so that they had passed around to Friend McMahan before McMahan sold to Wm Jr. so this defense against the bond must be unavailing. As to defense that Wm. Jr. received $40 in satisfaction it just rests as it is left by the answer of Wm. Jr. There is no proof that he ever accepted it. This furnished no bar to relief. Reception of title from McMahan by Wm. Sr. and acts of bond to his son were purely voluntary and will not present such a case as will authorize a chancellor to grant specific relief. To this it may be answered that these acts constitute a trust ..will form an adequate consideration if the trust is based on laudable objects. Only remaining objection to relief sought by Complainant is that the trust was created with a design to conceal the estate, or if not for that purpose was founded on some hidden motives. It is true that Wm. Jr. has evaded in his Bill his purposes, but denied it was was for delaying his creditors. It is proven he was somewhat embarrassed about that and there were executions against him which were afterwards satisfied. The answer of Wm. Sr. to the interrogatories cannot be admitted to prove anything against Wm. Jr. Must be admitted that his evasion of disclosure of object of the trust, together that he was under some embarrassments raise a strong presumption that to escape creditors was the object. Yet we cannot say that the fact was sufficiently established. We come to the conclusion without proof that there was nothing but innocence in the whole arrangement.
The report of Commissioners was excepted to in inferior Court; record does not how on what ground exceptions were taken. We have not the least evidence that the report is unreasonable or erroneous. It is insisted by Wm. Jr. that the principle of Decree are erroneous in directing the improvements to be assessed under the circumstances of the case, as Baird was a guilty purchases & was directed not to improve. We cannot perceive the principles of equity which entitle Baird or his heirs to compensation for their improvements. As we conceive then not entitled to such compensation, Wm. Jr. ought not to be allowed the rents which arose from the improvements made by Baird. Bairds heirs ought not to recover for the excess of improvements beyond the rent on account of rents & improvements was wholly unnecessary. Only accounts which ought to have been taken was an account of the rents as Baird got it. For these the heirs of Baird ought to be made responsible. We do not conceive that they are entitled to recover these rents of their improvements from Wm. Sr. as directed by the decree. The sum to be recovered by them of Wm. Sr. ought to be confined to the purchase money & interest paid by their ancestor & their costs & not as has been contended the increased value of the land. If Wm. Sr. committed a fraud in selling their ancestor was a participator in that fraud by purchasing with full knowledge of the equity of Wm. Jr.
The offset against the bond of Wm. Jr. given for rent to Guardian of Bairds heirs set up by the amended bill we conceive to connect itself with the consideration of the bond, that it is a proper subject of discount in Equity and as assessment of rents according to this opinion may result very differently from that directed by the Court below. As the equity against (heirs of Baird) arises out of the wrong of their ancestor we see no propriety in relieving them from the costs allowing them a reasonable time after their coming of age to show cause against the decree. It is therefore decreed and ordered that the decree aforesaid be reversed and set aside and the Cause remanded to the Court from whence came with directions to enter a decree in Conformity with the foregoing opinion. Which is ordered to be certified to said Circuit Court.
p.417 Thur. Apr 21 1825 [Suits of Wm Hardin Jr & the heirs of Baird go on….]
Breckinridge Co KY Circuit Court Order Books 1825-1832; Volumes 7-8
Fri April 21 1826 p.85 William Hardin Jr agst the heirs of Samiel Baird, dec'd
Commissions to go on the lots and appertain the value of the rents …from the time Samuel Baird took them into his possession in the situation the lots were in at that time
Sat Jul 22 1826 p.159 William Hardin Jr aginst Samuel Bairds heirs
….decreed that the defts the heirs of Samuel Baird deceased Convey to the Complt William Hardin Jr the lots in the Bill mentioned warranting the title…..by the 5th day of Aug next …William Hardin Jr. recover of the defts …his costs
Tues Jul 22 1828 p.383 William Hardin against Nathan Beedle
The deft came not. Pltff recover…sum of $860 in damaged and the costs on notes on the bank of the Commonwealth of KY….may be discharged by the payment of the above
William is said to have been a Postmaster at Frankfort, KY, and a Warden of the Kentucky Penitentiary. Reportedly had seven sons, four daughter, but their names are not all known.
I did not find William Jr in the Breckinridge Co census in either 1820 or 1830. There was a William Hardin in Hardin Co in 1820, as well as other William Hardins in Kentucky - impossible to tell.
Did he go briefly to Schuyler Co IL along with his brother-in-law William Crawford? Or is this just another William Hardin listed with a registered brand, living 4 miles south of Rushville, 21 Dec 1838....
1840, Frankfort City, Franklin Co KY
Wm Hardin. 1m -5 [William], 1m 15-20, 1m 50-60. 1f -5 [Victoria], 2f 10-15, 1f 30-40 [Caroline Innes]
Found in Louisville, Jefferson Co KY 1850 Census, p.248, Household #171 is the following:
John T. Fulwiler, age 32, clerk at Post Office, b. VA
Elizabeth, age 22, b. KY
Kate, age 1 1/12 , b. KY
Gen. William Hardin, age 68, b. KY [no occupation given]
Caroline C., age 45, b. KY
Ann, age 18, b. KY
Victoria, age 12, b. KY, attended school
William, age 11, b. KY, attended school
Second marriage is said to be to Mary Biddle, possibly a sister of Rachel Biddle Walker, wife of William's brother Henry. The third marriage to Cynthia Howey is not known to definitely be this William Hardin. Certainly he was married to Caroline Innis as referenced by the 1850 census above.
Cassandra HARDIN and William HARDIN Jr. had the following children: