Susan:

I think that you continue to do a TERRIFIC JOB finding additional evidence! This Court record, IF correctly transcribed by the Indexer, would seem to push back the date of PROOF of the 23 Nov 1790 Walter ASHMORE Will to 11 Jan 1791, very narrowly fixing the interval of Walter ASHMORE's death to the period from 23 Nov 1790 to 11 Jan 1791 and most likely since the Will mentions that Walter is ill, he probably died within days of the Will's execution.

Even so, it appears to me that you continue to cling to a very strained reading of what transpired in the face of the seemingly obvious.

It is NO SURPRISE that the Will would be proven by the testimony of the named witnesses. This is how Wills are ALWAYS proven, then and now (though a notarized Will might be accepted without the proof of the subscribing witnesses in modern times).

But what also almost ALWAYS accompanies the proof of the Will is an Application for Letters Testamentary (when an executor is named) and an Application for Letters of Administration when there is no named executor or executrix and/or when the named executor/executrix declines or is unable to serve.

There is NO MENTION within the abstracted Court records that Cleranah ASHMORE SOUGHT letters testamentary, that she posted a bond and/or qualified. There seems to be NO INVENTORY despite the fact that extant York Probate Book "A" CONTAINS over two hundred pages of Inventories for this period.

We are NOT comparing two Inventories. We are comparing legacies from one Will to an Inventory taken some eight years later of the VERY SAME ESTATE.

There is NO PRIMARY evidence as to the date the Macklenburg Will was made. We have only a very ambiguous indication in a published ABSTRACT.

Even if the Will was dated well AFTER Walter ASHMORE's death, while some evidence that there MIGHT HAVE BEEN two Walter ASHMOREs, this would also be equally consistent with the Mecklenburg Will being a BALD FORGERY!

Absent some other evidence, this would certainly seem to be a stretch.

But there is also the elephant in the room. The Mecklenburg Court EXPRESSLY REVOKED the probate of the Mecklenburg Will. THIS ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS.

How does one accomplish the REVOCATION of a Will with an estate then distributed BY LAW contrary to the EXPRESS INSTRUCTIONS of the testatator. This is EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT and especially AFTER an order had been entered admitting the Will to probate.

One basis by which a Will might be REJECTED would be if the Will was procured by duress, undue influence or fraud.

If a person was coerced into signing a Will (as at gunpoint or even threat of starvation or the withholding of water or nourishment), this would be duress and such a Will might be absolutely VOID (duress).

An execeptionally senile or frail person might be induced to make a Will that makes dispositions that the person would NOT ordinarily make if surrounded by supportive friends and family (undue influence).

A person might be falsely told that certain children or grandchildren are already dead, in prison or make other defamatory statements about such person causing a testator to make his or her Will based upon such false information (fraud).

But in general, then and now, the TIME to contest a Will is WHEN IT IS PRESENTED FOR PROBATE. Once a Will is accepted and a FINAL ORDER IS ENTERED, the order is typically subject to an APPEAL within a specific timeframe. Once that time frame passes, the order becomes FINAL and UNAPPEALABLE. A final order is NOT typically subject to ANY COLLATERAL ATTACK.

Thus, accepting arguendo that the Will was originally procured by duress, undue influence or fraud, the TIME to appeal the entry of an order admitting such Will to probate would usually be some number of days, weeks or months from teh entry of the order. After that, the order would only be subject to collateral attack under particularly exceptional circumstances.

So we are beginning our inquiry with a truly EXCEPTIONAL piece of information. The Mecklenburg Court REVOKED the probate of the Mecklenburg Will witnessed by the three FINCHERS. HOW CAN THIS BE EXPLAINED.

One possible explanation is that ANY ORDER by the Mecklenburg Court admitting to probate the Will of a decedent whose Will was already probated in York, SC, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the U.S. Constitution as a violation of the "full faith and credit clause."

Another possible explanation would be incontrovertible PROOF of the FORGERY of the Will. Historically, a forged deed is an ABSOLUTE NULLITY. If it could be proven that the Will was a FORGERY, this would be a basis to have the Will REVOKED after the period for appeal had run.

I actually cannot think of ANY OTHER LAWFUL BASIS by which a Will admitted to probate might be set aside.

Another question you should be asking yourself is WHO WOULD SEEK TO VOID the Will of this purported second Walter ASHMORE? Accepting arguendo that the second Will was by a Walter ASHMORE, Jr., as you surmise, his WIDOW would be entitled AT LAW to a widow's share. Then, in all likelihood the NC laws of intestate succession would bestow the balance of this small estate on the siblings of Walter ASHMORE, Jr. If Walter ASHMORE, Jr., had died leaving a young widow, would his siblings hire a lawyer to challenge the Will? Even the very BEST COLONIAL LAWYER probably couldn't have had this Will set aside absent some VERY CONCLUSIVE PROOF of rather regregious mischief!

So we ought to begin our inquiry NOT by assuming some REGULARITY as to the second Will, but based on precisely the converse: that a Will would almost NEVER be subject to being REJECTED, much less REVOKED if it was in general conformity to the probate laws. SOMETHING REALLY DRAMATIC HAD TO HAPPEN.

One possibility is that this Will was a COMPLETE FORGERY. One possible indicia that the Will was a forgery would be if the forger GOT THE DATE WRONG and the Will was dated WELL AFTER Walter ASHMORE's KNOWN date of death. Another rather conclusive basis might be if someone FALSELY REPRESENTED that the testator could neither read nor write and signed by mark when the person could readily write and sign their own name.

AN EXTANT WILL WRITTEN IN THE DECEDENT'S HAND RECORDED IN ANOTHER PLACE WOULD BE RATHER CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AS TO BOTH!

I am NOT insisting that the second Will is a forgery. Rather, I think ANY conclusion would necessarily await an examination of the images of the instrument.

But if EVER there was reason to view a document with exceptional suspicion, a Will which had been REVOKED by court order years after being admitting to probate would be such a case. Perhaps ONE EXCEPTION exists to this general rule and this is an exception to which I earlier alluded. IF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES CAME INTO COURT AND ASKED THE COURT TO VACATE THE WILL, THE COURT WOULD PROBABLY DO SO AS LONG AS THE INTERETS OF THE TESTATOR WERE NOT SERIOUSLY PREJUDICED IN ANY WAY.

* * *

Finally, I haven't yet seen ANY response or explanation to the rather glaring evidence presented by extant Census records. HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN THE APPEARANCE OF BOTH WILLIAM ASHMORE AND WALTER ASHMORE IN GREENVILLE, SC, IF WALTER ASHMORE DIED IN MECKLENBURG?

You are presenting the existence of TWO Walter ASHMOREs as the SIMPLER SOLUTION. THis is NOT a simple solution AT ALL, as it FAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY the Mecklenburg Will was REVOKED and WHY there is another Walter ASHMORE (b 29 Mar 1779, d 07 Mar 1833 - Greenville, SC) who shows up along with William ASHMORE in Greenville, SC, in 1810. The two Walter ASHMORE theory also STRAINS what is known about Walter ASHMORE's household composition.

We KNOW that Walter ASHMORE had one son age 16 or more and one son under age 16 in 1790 (b abt 1775-90). In 1795, this younger son could be NO MORE THAN age 20 and NOT YET ELIGBLE to receive his legacy from his father. Walter ASHMORE (b 29 Mar 1779, d 07 Mar 1833 - Greenville, SC) appears most likely to be that younger son.