Transcript of Proceedings, , Sangamon Co., IL, ca. 17 July 1852, U.S. v. Joseph Smith III et al. (United States Circuit Court for the District of IL 1852); U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois, Complete Records, 1837–1856, vol. 4, pp. 486–697; handwriting of ; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, National Archives at Chicago, Chicago.
That the said Defendant when an infant of very tender age, was adopted by said Joseph Smith deceased and said to be raised by them as their own child.
That said intermarried, with said Elisha Dixon as in said bill charged
That said and Elisha Dixon in the right of said claim to have an interest in that part of the North East qr. of section eight, township no. six North, Range no. eight West in said bill described
Rt N. E. 8 6, 8.
Also in the W 1/2 N. W. qr. sec 5 T. 4 N. R. 8 W
The E 1/2 " N. E. [qr. sec.] 6 [T.] 4 [N. R.] 8 [W] and
The E 1/2 " S. E. [qr. sec.] 31 [T.] 5 [N. R.] 8 [W]
in said bill described,
And also in the following town lots and blocks situate in Hancock County Illinois.
Lots Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on Block No. 95, also Blocks Nos 96, 97 and 98, Lots 1 and 2 on Block No. 99, Lot 4 on Block No. 104, Lots Nos 2 and 3 on Block No. 109, all Block 110, Lot No. 3 on Block No. 111, Lot No. 3 on Block No. 112, Lots Nos 3 and 4 on Block No. 113, Lots 1, 2 and 3 on Block No. 116, Lots 1, 2 and 4 on Block No 131, Lots Nos 1 and 2 on Block No. 135, Lots Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on Block No. 136, all Block No. 137, Lot No 4 on Block No. 142,Lot No 3 onBlock No 143Block No 144, Lot No. 1 on Block No 145, Lot No. 3 on Block No. 147, Lot No. 2 on Block No. <159> and Lot No. 1 on Block No. 160. in said bill mentioned, said interest so claimed by said and Elisha Dixon in right of said as aforesaid in the one undivided fourth part thereof in common <in fee> simple, and said Elisha Dixon claims to own in his own right in fee Lot 4 on Block no. 147 as Respondants are informed and believe.
Said defendants and Elisha Dixon claim no other or further interest in said premises in said bill mentioned than as above stated.
Respondants admit that the said Joseph Smith deceased died seized of a large amount of lands and town lots, but of what amount Respondants are unable to state fully, but positively deny that that said Joseph Smith deceased died seized of the premises in this answer before described or of any part of the premises, lots or blocks in said Bill described as situated on the South East qr. of section no. two in township no six North of Range No. nine West in said bill mentioned or of Lot no 3 on Block no. 93 or Lot no. 4 on Block no. 94 in aforesaid.
Respondants admit that most of the lands and town lots in said Bill mentioned are in possession of persons [p. 511]