Within Susan's renewal of this thread by the post above ("Confirmation: JESSE ROPER JR Was Married to Hannah Ashmore"), Susan has identified a Mecklenburg probate file which includes the Inventory of Walter ASHMORE's Estate.

The Inventory begins at Image 4 of 7.

See: "North Carolina, Estate Files, 1663-1979," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32012-10810-26... : accessed 24 August 2015), Mecklenburg County > A > Ashmore, Walter (1798) > image 4 of 7; State Archives, Raleigh.

* * *

There are seveal elements of this Inventory whcih might facially support Susan's construction that there are TWO Walter ASHMORE's rather than one.

One such indication is the showing that this is "An Inventory justly Given by the Wife of Walter ASMORE Junr. Deceased of the perishable property of the Sd Estate Which is now suposed to be In Mecklenburg County, No. Carolina."

The indication Walter ASMORE Junr. might seem suggestive that this is the son of the Walter ASHMORE who died bef 11 Jan 1791. The trouble with this interpretation is that secondary sources seem to be rather universal in their ascription that Walter ASHMORE (d bef 11 Jan 1791) is in turn the son of another Walter ASHMORE. So the inclusion of "Jr." may indicate only that Walter ASHMORE's (d bef 11 Jan 1791) father was then still living (though IF this is the case he seems to be embedded within the household of some other family).

Also, note that this is NOT purported to be a COMPLETE Inventory, but rather ONLY an Inventory of the "perishsable" property found within Mecklenburg. This suggests both the possibilty that there is other non-perishable property, possibly including real property.

Here is what the schedule includes:

"1 Hors sold for Cash by the Wife - $60
1 Do - $30
2 beds at property Hold? - $30
5 hogs - $10
others hous furniture - $1
1 Mair - $60
[Total] - $200

Produced in Part by me attempting to Administer on the sd Estate.

Jesse ROPER Junr."

* * *

Now, lets compare this Inventory to those items expressly mentioned in specific bequests by Walter ASHMORE in his 23 Nov 1790 Will.

To Cleranah ASHMORE:

"all my Household Furniture & Land, the old sorril mare one old Cow & three large yearlings and three Sheep & Five Hogs & Also a third part of money due by bonds from WiIliam ASHFORD & William HALL."

To Margaret ASHMORE:

"one large black horse one cow & two yearlings & two sheep and two hogs."

To Mary ASHMORE:

"one brown Horse two Cows & two yearlings, two sheep & two Hogs."

To William ASHMORE:

"one bay Horse & Saddle two Cows & two yearlings two Sheep & two Hogs.

To Walter ASHMORE:

"one black mare & saddle also two Cows & two yearlings two Sheep & two Hogs."

To Ellinor ASHMORE:

"one young sorril mare 2 cows 2 yearlings, 2 Sheep, 2 Hogs."

To sons William and Walter ASHMORE:

"all my smith Tools & it is my Will that they my sons William & Walter pay unto their mother the sum of eight pounds 6/8 North Carolina Currency & to be paid in hard money."
"Nine pounds in George CALLY which I give to my two sons."

NOTE: Implicitly this seems to imply that William and Walter are sons of Cleranah ASHMORE, though I have very infrequently seen the use of the term "stepmother" in old wills.

To the three daughters:

"The other two parts of that money in the Hands of William ASHFORD & William HALL be equally divided between my three Daughters."
"And further the thirty pounds in TALCHAM Hand & 9 pounds in Samuel & Nathaniel GREEN Hand."

See: "South Carolina Probate Records, Bound Volumes, 1671-1977," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-19421-52709-0?cc=... : accessed 24 August 2015), York > Estate record books, 1787-1799, Vol. A > image 66 of 418; citing Department of Archives and History, Columbia.

* * * * *

Accepting arguendo that the 26 Oct 1798 Inventory prepared by Jesse ROPER, Jr., is that of the younger Walter ASHMORE, we BEGIN with the problem that if he is the YOUNGER SON shown in the 1790 Census, it would seem that he would NOT YET BE AGE 21 and would therefore have NO DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY AT ALL in 1795 the date of EITHER the Mecklenburg Will or the PROBATE of the Mecklenburg Will.

But leaving that impediment aside and ASSUMING that the younger Walter ASHMORE HAD received his legacies by 1795, we would expect to see:

o one black mare & saddle
o two Cows
o two yearlings
o two Sheep
o two Hogs.
o smith tools

Instead, the Inventory shows:

o 2 horses (sold for cash)
o 2 beds at property Hold
o 5 hogs
o others hous furniture
o 1 mare

Thus, Walter's estate in 1798 would seem to have 2 extra horses, furniture, 3 extra hogs and NO SMITH tools (though these might not be deemed "perishable", than might be expected if this was the younger Walter.

* * *

Now compare with the legacy to Cleranah ASHMORE:

o all my Household Furniture & Land
o the old sorril mare
o one old Cow
o three large yearlings
o three Sheep
o Five Hogs

Again the 1798 Inventory:

o 2 horses (sold for cash)
o 2 beds at property Hold
o 5 hogs
o others hous furniture
o 1 mare

The cattle and sheep seem to be gone. The inventory INCLUDES furniture ALL of which was to go to Cleranah ASHMORE. The estate contains precisely the number of hogs to which Cleranah ASHMORE seemed to be entitled. There is a mare, to which Cleranah ASHMORE would have been entitled. But the estate seems to have sold two horses for cash, possibly the horses reserved in the legacies to Margaret ("one large black horse"), Mary ("one brown Horse") and William ("one bay Horse").

* * * * *

My overall point here is that IF the Inventory is that of Walter ASHMORE, son of Walter ASHMORE (d bef 11 Jan 1791), then he has MUCH MORE than expected though NOT some of the items most likely to be preserved (the smith tools). If this is the Inventory of Cleranah ASHMORE, the livestock is mostly depleted and she seems to be selling the horses expressly bequeathed to particular children, something that would be likely to provoke controversy, particularly to the spouses of the daughters!

In my view, the character of the Inventory is far more consistent with it being what remained of the personal property of Walter ASHMORE (d bef 11 Jan 1791) some eight years after his death. This is NOT to say that Cleranah ASHMORE had misused the estate assets in ANY WAY. Rather, from the very outset, express bequests of livestock of this sort presupposes that a young widow raising children is going to be able to preserve the estate without dipping into capital, which was probably completely UNREALISTIC.

The UNREALISTIC disposition of the property as set forth within Walter ASHMORE's (d bef 11 Jan 1791) Will probated in York County would seem to me to be SO UNREALISTIC as to almost certainly be written by a younger rather than older man. An older man would probably KNOW BETTER.

* * * * *

On balance, when I READ the Walter ASHMORE's (d bef 11 Jan 1791) Will probated in York County it strikes me as a Will likely to cause controversy within the family rather than a Will which might promote family harmony. The dischord would tend to reach a crenscendo as the estate assets dwindled and the children began to reach their majority (or as the daughters married).

Thus, in my view, both the23 Nov 1790 Will and the 26 Oct 1798 Inventory are most consistent with the latter inventory being that given by Walter ASHMORE's (d bef 11 Jan 1791) widow when the day of reckoning approached.

My suspicion is that Hannah's brothers -- FINCHERS -- probably forged a Will making a disposition of Walter ASHMORE's estate, favoring their sister, but which they believed to be just. Trying to forge Walter ASHMORE's handwriting would have been challenging, EXCEPT that probably NO ONE in Mecklenburg KNEW what Walter's hand writing looked like. Therefore, a Will in the hand of a FINCHER signed by mark would have easily passed muster with the Mecklenburg court given the perjured testimony of the purported subscribing witnesses. When the Will was ultimately challenged, perhaps using a court certified copy of the real Will probated in York, SC, an accommodation was quickly reached, resulting in the REVOCATION of the Mecklenburg Will, agreed sale of the inventory and distribution of the balance to the children.

Jesse ROPER, Jr.'s marriage to Hannah had generally resolved issues as to Hannah's support, at least while Jesse ROPER, Jr., remained alive.