Oyer and Terminer Abstract as it relates to John “Matthew” Gaulding and his wife Elizabeth

In December 1752, the death of Alexander Gaulding left two minor children, Jacob and an unnamed daughter, requiring immediate legal protection during a period of administrative transition in central Virginia. At the time of Alexander’s death, the family lived in the portion of Amelia County that would soon become Prince Edward County (established 1754). Because county boundaries and court jurisdictions were in flux, the initial guardianship petition submitted by Alexander’s brother, John “Mathew” Gaulding (1), and his wife Elizabeth, was transmitted to the Secretary’s Office in Williamsburg for recording. The surviving copy appears today in a bound volume that also contains proceedings of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, a special criminal tribunal convened to “hear and determine” capital offenses. Its presence in that volume has caused later researchers to assume that the Oyer and Terminer court exercised authority over the Gaulding children. In fact, the special court had no civil jurisdiction and no statutory authority over orphans, guardianship, or estate administration. Under Virginia law, such matters belonged exclusively to the county courts, with the General Court intervening only in disputes or appeals. The Gaulding petition was therefore recorded in Williamsburg, not adjudicated there; its placement reflects clerical practice rather than judicial action.

The Court of Oyer and Terminer was a special criminal tribunal used throughout the English legal world, including colonial Virginia

Background History of the Court of Oyer and Terminer in Virginia

The Court of Oyer and Terminer was a special criminal tribunal used throughout the English legal world, including colonial Virginia. The name derives from the Anglo‑French phrase oyer et terminer, meaning “to hear and determine”—a reference to its authority to investigate, hear, and adjudicate serious criminal offenses, especially felonies, capital crimes, and cases requiring swift resolution. Unlike the regular county courts or the General Court, which handled a broad range of civil and criminal matters, Oyer and Terminer courts were extraordinary commissions convened by the governor under royal authority. Their purpose was to ensure that major criminal cases could be tried without waiting for the next General Court term, which met only twice a year.

In Virginia, Oyer and Terminer sessions were held in Williamsburg, the colonial capital, and were presided over by members of the Governor’s Council, who acted as judges. These sessions were not standing courts; they were called as needed, usually when a felony indictment required prompt attention. Their jurisdiction was strictly criminal. They did not hear civil suits, probate matters, estate disputes, or guardianship cases. Those responsibilities belonged to the county courts, with limited oversight by the General Court. That this court presided over criminal cases is probably what led someone along the way to invent the story that Alexander was hung in Williamsburg. See Gaulding Origins, Alexander Gaulding was not executed!

The Role of Oyer and Terminer in Williamsburg in 1752

In 1752, Williamsburg served as the administrative and judicial center of the colony. The Court of Oyer and Terminer met there periodically to try capital cases—murders, robberies, slave insurrections, and other felonies. Its function was to supplement the General Court by providing a mechanism for timely criminal trials. The court’s records were kept in the Secretary’s Office, which also housed a wide variety of unrelated documents: county returns, probate abstracts, petitions, and miscellaneous filings sent to the capital for preservation. (2)

This mixed record‑keeping practice is the key to understanding why the 1752 Gaulding guardianship petition appears in a volume that also contains Oyer and Terminer material. (3) The presence of the petition in that book does not indicate that the Oyer and Terminer court heard the case. Instead, it reflects the clerical habit of binding unrelated documents together in the same physical volume. During periods of county formation—such as the transition from Amelia County to Prince Edward County—urgent matters involving orphans were sometimes forwarded to Williamsburg for recording, especially when local court books were being reorganized.  I cannot, however, make that absolute determination until I see what the Abstract actually says. 

Thus, in 1752, the Court of Oyer and Terminer was functioning exactly as intended: hearing criminal cases in the capital. It played no role in guardianship, orphan care, or civil administration. (4) The Gaulding petition’s appearance in the same bound volume was probably an artifact of record transmission, not judicial action.

The importance of accessing the original material

The source most frequently cited for this episode is a self‑published booklet by Dr. Charles H. called The Gaulden, Gaulden, Gauldin, Gaulding Family History: A Seven Hundred Year Study, Volume One (April 1999). (5) On pages 21 and 23, Dr. Gaulden summarizes an abstract of the Williamsburg record (Library of Virginia call number E69626.8 975.51 N46 SA24) and asserts that a James Stuart was granted custody of one of Alexander’s children, suggesting that James may have been the brother of Alexander’s mother, Anne (Stuart?) Gaulding. (1) However, the original court record no longer exists, and the abstract he cites is not accessible to me; therefore, I cannot verify what the abstract actually says. Dr. Gaulden also refers to an “Alexander Stuart” as having been in the vicinity, but no such individual has been located in surviving New Kent or Hanover records. His interpretation appears to rely on surname coincidence, later naming patterns, and the unverified abstract rather than primary documentation.  See Gaulding Origins, “Anne, the wife of John Gaulding was not a member of the Sheart Family”.

What is verifiable is that in 1757, the Prince Edward County Court bound out Alexander’s children to John Sheart and Thomas Scott. This outcome contradicts the idea that James Stuart received custody and instead aligns with the legal principle that guardianship followed the closest living relative in the county with legal standing. Under Virginia law, a maternal uncle had a stronger claim than a paternal uncle’s widow or collateral kin. Thus, John Sheart — almost certainly the maternal uncle of Alexander’s children — was the appropriate guardian under the statutes governing orphans. His appointment has no connection to the identity of Alexander’s mother, Anne, and does not support the existence of an “Alexander Stuart” in the family.

The later appearance of a woman named Susannah Gaulding, who bore an illegitimate son named Freeman, is consistent with her being the unnamed daughter bound out in 1757. No further records survive for her brother Jacob. The 1752–1757 sequence therefore reflects a typical pattern: temporary custody sought immediately after the father’s death, followed by a formal guardianship assigned by the county court once Prince Edward County was fully operational. The Williamsburg record documents the administrative transmission of the case during county formation, not an exercise of authority by the Court of Oyer and Terminer, and the secondary abstract cited by Dr. Gaulden cannot be treated as viable without access to the original text.

Timeline: Custody & Guardianship of the Children of Alexander Gauldin (1752–1757)

December 1752 — Death of Alexander Gauldin

When Alexander Gauldin died in December 1752, he lived in the portion of Amelia County, Virginia, that would soon be carved into Prince Edward County (established 1754). This was a moment of administrative instability, with county boundaries shifting, court jurisdictions being reorganized, and record books being transferred, recopied, or replaced. His death therefore occurred at a time when the local court system was in transition, and this directly shaped how the custody of his children was handled.

Under Virginia law, the death of a father leaving minor children immediately triggered the jurisdiction of the county court over orphans. The court was responsible for determining custody, appointing guardians, and ensuring the children’s maintenance and apprenticeship. But in late 1752, Amelia County’s court was overburdened, its territory was about to be divided, and its records were being reorganized. As a result, some urgent matters—including orphan petitions—were forwarded to the Secretary’s Office in Williamsburg for recording. This explains why the Gaulding custody petition appears in a Williamsburg volume that also contains Oyer and Terminer material.

Late December 1752 / Early 1753 — Petition by John “Mathew” Gaulding and wife Elizabeth

Alexander’s brother John “Mathew” Gaulding and his wife Elizabeth petition for custody of the children. Because Amelia County was undergoing administrative transition and its records were being reorganized, the petition is forwarded to Williamsburg for recording.  This petition survives only as an abstract in a mixed record volume that also contains Oyer and Terminer criminal proceedings.  The original court record is lost, and the abstract is not currently accessible except in person at the Library of Virginia. 

1752–1753 — The Williamsburg Abstract (Surviving Only as a Fragment)

The long‑standing claim that a James Stuart received custody of one of the children of Alexander Gauldin after Alexander’s death in December 1752 rests entirely on a single secondary source: a brief statement in Dr. Charles H. Gaulden’s Gaulden, Gauldin, Gaulding Family History (1999). Dr. Gaulden cites an abstract housed at the Library of Virginia (call number E69626.8 975.51 N46 SA24), but the original court record no longer survives, and the abstract itself is not accessible, leaving its exact wording unknown. No independent transcription or corroborating document has ever been located.

A review of surviving Amelia County and Prince Edward County records reveals no evidence that a man named James Stuart lived in the Gaulding orbit during this period, nor does any record show him acting as guardian, bondsman, or custodian for Alexander’s children. Dr. Gaulden also suggests that an Alexander Stuart lived in the area but no such individual appears in any surviving New Kent, Hanover, Amelia, or Prince Edward records. These claims appear to rely on naming‑pattern speculation and assumptions about Anne’s maiden name rather than on primary documentation.

What is documented is that in March 1757, the Prince Edward County Court formally bound out Alexander’s children—the daughter to John Sheart and her brother to Thomas Scott. (1) This is the only surviving guardianship action, and it aligns with Virginia law, which gave priority to maternal kin when available. Sheart was almost certainly the children’s maternal uncle, and his appointment requires no connection to Anne’s speculative maiden name. In light of the surviving evidence, the James Stuart claim is unsupported, unverifiable, and contradicted by the only extant primary record.

1754 — Formation of Prince Edward County

When Alexander Gaulding died in December 1752, Amelia County was undergoing significant administrative upheaval. (1) The western portion of the county—where the Gauldings lived—was already being prepared for division, and within two years it would become Prince Edward County. During this transition, Amelia’s court system was strained: record books were being reorganized, some were being recopied, and clerks were preparing to transfer jurisdiction to the new county. In such periods, routine county business—especially urgent matters involving orphans—did not always remain in local custody.

Under Virginia law, the county court was responsible for appointing guardians and securing the welfare of orphaned children. But because Amelia County’s records were in flux at the time of Alexander’s death, the custody petition submitted by John “Mathew” Gaulding and his wife Elizabeth was forwarded to Williamsburg to be recorded in the Secretary’s Office, the central repository for colonial administrative documents. The Secretary’s clerks routinely bound together a wide variety of materials—county filings, probate abstracts, petitions, and even Oyer and Terminer criminal proceedings—into the same volumes. As a result, the Gaulding petition now appears in a book that also contains Oyer and Terminer cases, even though that special criminal court had no authority over guardianship.

The Williamsburg entry survives only as an abstract, and the original county record has been lost, leaving the exact wording unknown. Once Prince Edward County became fully operational, the matter returned to local jurisdiction, culminating in the 1757 court orders that bound Alexander’s children to John Sheart and Thomas Scott—the only surviving primary guardianship action.

1754–1757 — Children remain without a recorded permanent guardian

No surviving county records show who cared for the children during these years.  Given the 1757 outcome, they were likely living with extended family or under informal care pending a formal guardianship decision. 

March Court 1757 — Prince Edward County Court Order Book 1, p. 115

When the Prince Edward County Court finally addressed the long‑delayed guardianship of Alexander Gaulding’s children in March 1757, it assigned the two minors to different caretakers: the daughter—later identifiable as Susannah—was bound to John Sheart, and her brother (recorded variously as John or Jacob) was bound to Thomas Scott. The appointment of John Sheart is the most significant of the two because it reflects the legal principles governing orphan care in colonial Virginia and clarifies the children’s maternal family connections.

Under Virginia law, guardianship did not automatically follow the paternal line. Instead, the county court was required to place orphaned children with the closest suitable relative, and the statutes explicitly recognized the claims of maternal kin. By 1757, Prince Edward County was fully operational, and the court was able to make a formal determination based on the children’s actual family structure. The record shows that John Sheart was almost certainly the maternal uncle of Alexander’s children—brother to Alexander’s wife, whose name is not preserved in surviving records but who was not connected to the speculative Stuart line proposed in later genealogies.

The Sheart appointment also demonstrates that the earlier 1752 petition by John “Mathew” Gaulding and his wife Elizabeth—recorded only as an abstract in Williamsburg—was not granted. Whatever the content of that lost petition, the county court ultimately determined that the children belonged with their mother’s family, not with their paternal uncle. This outcome is consistent with both the law and the surviving evidence. It also directly contradicts the unverified claim that a James Stuart received custody because no such order appears in any Amelia or Prince Edward record, and no James Stuart is otherwise documented in the Gaulding orbit during this period.

Thus, the 1757 guardianship order placing the children with John Sheart and Thomas Scott is the first and only definitive primary‑source evidence of who legally cared for Alexander’s children. It reflects the normal operation of Virginia orphan law, the priority given to maternal kin, and the reestablishment of stable county jurisdiction after the administrative disruptions surrounding the creation of Prince Edward County.

Why the James Stuart claim is genealogically implausible

Even if a James Stuart existed, he would have been a brother of Anne and not of Alexander, therefore the great-uncle to the children.  Under Virginia law he was not the closest living relative.  Virginia guardianship statutes prioritized maternal uncles, paternal uncles, other kin and no-kin only if no other relatives were available.  John Sheart, as the children’s maternal uncle, had the strongest claim. Jacob afterwards disappears from the records. In 1757 he would have been old enough to be apprenticed and if he moved after his apprenticeship was over in 4-7 years, I don't know where he went. Thomas Scott likewise would have found usefull work for the daughter to do.

Post‑1757 — Later appearance of Susannah

A woman named Susannah Gaulding or Golding, identified as a “poor woman” later appears with an illegitimate son named Freeman.  This is consistent with her being the same daughter bound out in 1757. 

Need to confirm a Gaulding/Geers connection

There is another reason why it is important to access this Abstract and see exactly what it says.  Matthew “John II” Gaulding married Elizabeth and it has always been recorded that her name was Geers.  I have yet to find a marriage document that proves the Gaulding and Geers family were related by marriage.  If Elizabeth is referred to by anything other than her first name, that would be proof of her family affiliation. 

Works Cited

1. St. Peter’s Parish (New Kent County, Va.). The Parish Register of Saint Peter’s, New Kent County, Virginia, from 1680 to 1787. Richmond: National Society of the Colonial Dames of America, 1904. [Online] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89067492739 . Contains early Gaulding baptisms and contextual family entries; Matthew and Alexander were brothers.

2. Hening, William Waller, ed. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia. 13 vols. Richmond: Franklin Press, 1809–1823. Volumes 5 and 6 include statutes governing county court jurisdiction over orphans and the establishment and limits of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. [Online] https://vagenweb.org/hening/.

3. Billings, Warren M., John E. Selby, and Thad W. Tate. Colonial Virginia: A History. White Plains, NY: KTO Press, 1986. [Online] Authoritative overview of Virginia’s legal and administrative structure, including county courts, the General Court, and the Secretary’s Office.

4. Morris, Richard B. Government and Labor in Early America. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Provides context for the functioning of colonial courts and labor/guardianship systems.

5. Gaulden, Charles H. Gaulden, Gauldin, Gaulding Family History: A Seven Hundred Year Study, Volume One. Self‑published, April 1999. [Online] Contains unverified claims regarding James Stuart and speculative interpretations of the Williamsburg abstract, useful only as a pointer to the Library of Virginia abstract.

6. Secretary of the Colony (Virginia). Williamsburg Record Books. Abstract referenced in Charles H. Gaulden, Gaulden, Gauldin, Gaulding Family History (1999). [Online] Library of Virginia call number E69626.8 975.51 N46 SA24, Contains a clerk’s abstract of the 1752 Gaulding custody petition; original record lost.

7. Prince Edward County, Virginia. Court Order Book 1, 1754–1759. Microfilm. Library of Virginia, Richmond. See p. 115, March Court 1757, for the binding out of daugher to John Sheart and her brother to Thomas Scott.

8. Amelia County, Virginia. Court Records, 1750–1754. Microfilm. Library of Virginia, Richmond. Records of county administration during the period immediately preceding the formation of Prince Edward County.