|
a.
|
Note: From Judy Sivley Feb. 6, 1999: "It appears that Joseph II, while in his 30-40's had an affair with a young lady and fathered a child with her. She was 17 when she became pregnant. This was quite the scandal. He was married to Rachel Taylor, with children, a very prominent man in Huntsville [Alabama] and was the sole owner of the Sivley Plantation which he had purchased from his father in 1853. There is a book titled "True Tales of Madison County" by Virgil Carrington Jones which talks at length about this. The girl's name was Elizabeth Matkin. I got this information from a Matkin relative trying to locate which Sivley could have been the father. The reason I have it narrowed down to Joseph II is because the information states that 'Joseph was Elizabeth's husbands nephew through Jesse's brother, Andrew H. Sivley'. The only thing that throws me is they mention a 'Clara Marshall' that someone was married to and had 5 children with, never heard of her and this does confuse me." [Clarification: Andrew had a son named Joseph who married Clara Marshall.]
"Joseph Sivley's death is somewhat of a mystery, he died at a fairly early age. There is speculation that he knew he was dying because he made out a will just a month before his death. But, there is also speculation that he was killed at the Morgan County courthouse. It is believed he may have been trying to collect a debt from a gambling case he lost in Madison County court and was killed during the process. Court records show that in 1809 he filed a $50 lawsuit against Michael Harrison and John Carter Sivley, his lawyer was John C. Hamilton. According to court documents, Robert Williams and the two defendants played darts and money was bet. Williams won $50 from Harrison and Carter who signed a promissory note for the money in Madison County on November 24, 1809. Williams assigned the note to Joseph Sivley who tried to colect the debt, unsuccessfully. The case went before the jury which found that the promissory note was executed for money won at gaming, therefore they decreed the plaintiff get nothing for the false clamour and the defendants recover their cost of the suit from the plaintiff."
|
