Page 58 - Foy

daughters, two of whom were CATHREIN MILES and REBECCA FOYY (their

spelling, not mine), each five pounds and one slave, and to his wife,
REBACCA, the remainder of his estate.

The AHS document continues, The Maryland Assembly, during its May1-June
4 session in 1744 passed “An Act for the Relief of --- THOMAS FOY, a
languishing prisoner in Talbot County Goal (or Jail) and five other men in
various counties, etc, etc.

This act provided for the said prisoners’ release, under certain rigid
conditions, one of which was that is unmarried and having no family, their
time of five years might be sold, and the proceeds applied toward payment of
their debts.

THOMAS FOY, of Baltimore County, sold in 1747, to GEORGE
HITCHCOCK, one hundred acres of land called “Tracey’Park.” No further
record of THOMAS FOY has been found in Maryland records, and i t s e e m s
possible that he was identical with the THOMAS FOY who, two years later,
bought land in Craven County, North Carolina and whose history is given
below.

Reverting to the tradition that FREDERICK FOY, one of the “three brothers”,
settled in Maryland, it is noted that the probate records of Baltimore include
the wills of a JAMES FOY December 20, 1815, and a FREDERICK FOY, SR,.
whose will devised all his estate to FREDERICK FOY, JR., was probated
November 13, 1838.

There, again, is the kind of necessary reasoning used by the AHS to connect the
THOMAS FOY in Maryland to the THOMAS FOY in North Carolina; reasoning
which linked records of two events separated by two years by two people in two
different states with the same name. However, in their defense, they do use qualifying
words such as possibly and reverting to tradition. Those words are not used by many
FOY researchers in later histories of the FOYs which leaves the impression the things
reported are facts. They are not facts. Real facts are often hard to find in genealogy.

Ch. 5 Pg. 2