Tags
edward_maddx edward_maddock edward_maddocke dr._edward_maddock edward_maddock_apothecary, nanjemoy_maryland charles_county_maryland
The three records below show that Cornelius Maddock sued Dr. Edward Maddock – his presumptive father – for 1,000 pounds of tobacco in 1684. These are the only known records that demonstrate an established relationship between the two men.
At first blush, these records indicated to me that Edward was not Cornelius’ father, since the father-son relationship probably would have prevented such a lawsuit. But then it dawned on me that this suit actually supports a father-son relationship, if this suit is a result of Edward’s death (some believe he died around 1683, but others claim he died in 1690). If he died in 1683 or thereabouts, Cornelius might have been suing to receive an expected payout or debt from Edward’s estate.
Very interestingly, this suit was settled on 11 March 1685. Cornelius wed Mary Smallwood on 16 March 1685.
Oct. 28, 1684-Nov. 11, 1684 – Cornelius Maddocke vs. Edward Maddocke for 1000 lbs. tobacco. Edward Maddocke appears by his attorney Edmund Dennis. (Charles Co., Md. Circuit Court, Liber L, p. 15.)
Nov. 12, 1684-Jan. 13, 1684/5 – Cornelius Maddocke vs. Edward Maddocke for 1000 lbs. of tobacco. The said action is continued. (Charles Co., Md. Circuit Court, Liber L, p. 69.)
Mar. 11, 1684/5 – Cornelius Maddock, merchant vs. Edward Maddock, surgeon. Suit on Edward’s note to Cornelius of Sep. 17, 1684 for 1070 lbs. of tobacco. Edward admits that he owes Cornelius 1000 lbs. of tobacco. Judgment for Cornelius for 1000 lbs. of tobacco. (Charles Co., Md. Circuit Court, Liber L, pp. 106-7.)
hisXmark 
Justin: from the proposed chronology that you list, Cornelius spoke from the dead in admitting he owned Edward a l000 pounds of tobacco. Or I’m not reading the chronology right.
Eh? Cornelius died in 1705. The suit was in 1684/5.
Oh… I see what you’re saying. I should clarify.
Just discovered your blog. Very well done, guys. Thank you for sharing your research publicly. So nice to see.
Since I have only just found you, I have to ask the question right off: what’s your thought about the descendants of James of Cornelius having different DNA than descendants of Benjamin of Cornelius? They both seem like very solid pedigrees.
Thanks Eric! It’s been quite a lot of work!
As for the DNA question, I think that technically the male descendants of a common father should have a strong majority of DNA in common. But… I’m a little concerned about some of the Maddox DNA claims floating around the internet, since it’s not clear how some of the DNA test-takers have documented/proven their connection to Cornelius/Benjamin. Why do you ask?
I am descended from Mark Maddox, whose DNA matches the Abbeville group (and who probably came from Charles Co. as well) and I’ve gotten to know a couple of the Abbeville researchers through the Maddox DNA yahoo group. There was a fairly significant dust up a few years ago among that group, resulting from the fact that a descendant (actually more than one, I think) of James/Cornelius tested as a match to the original VA Alexander line. Meanwhile, the Abbeville group is a different genetic line. Both can’t be right, right? So I thought this was a pretty controversial question that needed resolution. Yet, I keep coming upon researchers like you, who don’t seem especially troubled by the fact that both James and Benjamin both have solid, documented links to Cornelius, but apparently differing genetic lines. So I was curious to hear your perspective. Thanks!
Well, they can both be right if Alexander had a common forefather with James/Cornelius.
A lot of people make claims to direct descendency to Cornelius without really having documented the link. For example, there’s an assumption among most online researchers that Cornelius’ father is Edward. Because the online research has proliferated, the connection between the Cornelius and Edward is pretty much taken for granted.
So, as with all claims, I’d want to see the documentation of the Alexander descendant’s claim before judging the DNA claim and the confusion that followed.