Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

East

In 1743 Seth Seekright, sub-lessee of Lot 57, sued John Burdette (owner of lot 58) for trespass. The court accepted the Surveyor's report that Burdette's building encroached on Lot 57 by 8 feet, while his lot (as then held by Mr. Kerr) encroached by 14 feet (6 feet beyond the building), and shortly before had encroached by 18 feet. By the decision, damages of £5 were awarded. It is assumed (although without direct proof) that with payment of damages title to 8 feet or more, (including the encroachment of either the house or the lot) passed to Burdette. ^{Since the west end of the Burdette foundation has been located, the east lot line can be located at least tentatively 8 feet east of it.}

West

In 1742 Henry Wetherburn bought lot 57. In 1749 he also bought what remained of Lot 56 after the detachment (in 1745) of the Shields strip, 30 feet wide, on the west. Since the original lot 56 had been of 8½ feet more or less, Wetherburn's purchase must have been of 52½ feet more or less.

In 1760 Wetherburn sold the westernmost 61 feet of his holding to William Pasteur. Since Wetherburn's holding included only about 52½ feet of Lot 56, some 8½ feet on the west side of Lot 57 must have been comprised in this sale.

The property sold to Pasteur was 61 feet wide. It is actually about 61 feet from the east line of the Scrivener foundation to the east line of the existing Lee house. The east end of the Lee house measures approximately the same as the Greenhow house of policy 645, and both may occupy the same site as the Sproule-Turnbull-Yuille-Miller store. All this evidence suggests that the east line of the Lee house is the east line of the property sold by Wetherburn in 1760. This property is known to have included about 8½ feet of lot 57. Hence if lot 57 was of 82½ feet, the original east boundary should be about 74 feet east of the Lee house.

A boundary on this line would fall 13½ feet inside a colonial foundation which seems to be that of Burdette's Ordinary. The most obvious inference would be that Burdette's trespass was in fact of 13½ feet instead of 8 feet as determined in the lawsuit. Another explanation might be that Lot 57 was laid off less than -2- the prescribed 82½ feet in width.

More definite conclusions do not seem justified at this time, pending future excavation in the Lee lot to the west and the Armistead lot to the east. It has been noted elsewhere (as in the Vaiden and Scrivener Archaeological reports) that evidence of the location of Colonial lot lines in Block 17 is highly inconsistent - so inconsistent as to raise a strong suspicion that the original lines were irregularly spaced.

The Bryhn (Red Lion) and Donegan (Burdette) sites together occupied the whole of lot 57 (minus the western strip of 9 feet more or less) and a considerable part of lot 58. After the demolition of the houses, the two sites were combined for archaeological purposes as Area C. The Area included something over a third of the depth from south to north of the Red Lion Site, and about three fourths of the depth of the Burdette site.

The ground north of both sites as far as Nicholson Street was explored later as Area H.

In the southwest corner of Area C it was found that nearly all indications of early construction had disappeared, (probably when the Bryhn house was built).

"Penman's Dwelling" (Foundation F)

Evidences that F cannot have been a foundation for the structure of the photograph are:

• (1)The latter stands 7 or 8 feet from the end of the Lee house, from the end of the Lee house, from which F is separated by less than three feet; and
• (2)part of F is the foundation of a chimney just inside the end wall, whereas the building in the photograph has an inside chimney not at the end, but several yards inside ^within the building.

F may be the foundation of the "Penman" building of the surveyor's drawing of 1743.

Comparison between the length and width of the lots shown on this drawing shows that a nearly uniform scale was used. (This scale works out graphically to about 39 feet to the inch).

The following dimensions, scaled from the drawing, check nearly or exactly with other evidence:

• (1)The west end of Penman's dwelling is 12 feet from the west line of lot 57. This is assumed to be identical with foundation A, which is 3 feet from the east end of the Lee house, which in turn is assumed to be 9 feet east of the original lot line (on account of the transfer of 1760).
• (2)From the west end of Penman's dwelling to the west end of Burdette's is slightly over 60 feet, and Burdette's dwelling itself is slightly over 48 feet long.
• (3)Burdette's dwelling projects, as noted in the report, 8 feet into lot 57, while dotted lines A and B (representing two lot lines wrongfully established by Burdette at different times) are no farther off scale than might be explained by inexpert draftsmanship.
• - 4 -
• (4)Both chimneys of the Penman dwelling are shown inside the end walls. The known foundation of the west chimney at least (the east chimney having disappeared) was in fact inside the wall.

The drawing shows on the first floor a door at center, an ordinary window to the west, and a double window to the east. The double window is almost certainly a show window, and indicates that a shop was probably kept here.

There is little evidence, and that indirect, as to the date of construction of the Penman dwelling.

It may be presumed ^{is to be supposed} that Francis Sharp ^had erected a building on the lot by 1719, when he acquired title. The wording of the Penman lease of 1742 clearly indicates that a "Mansion House" with a "back shed ... adjoining" stood on the lot at that time, and that Penman undertook to rebuild and widen the "back shed" (presumably a shed-roofed rear addition) and also to construct a new house of 16 by 20 feet.

The "Mansion House" mentioned in 1742 was very likely the Penman House shown on the drawing of 1743, and the house of foundation F. It may be tentatively reconstructed as follows:

An A-roofed story and a half frame structure of about 17 x 30 feet, with a lean-to rear addition 8 feet wide, no basement, inside chimneys at each end, and in front three dormers, a center door, and the single and double windows mentioned above.

There is no evidence ^{aside from the provisions of the Penman lease}, that a separate building of 16 by 20 feet was ever erected on this lot. Nor is there any evidence, historical or archaeological, that it was built as an addition to the "Mansion House" (to which foundation F is assumed to have belonged), or to the dwelling of foundation G (probably the Red Lion: see below). Possibly Penman evaded or was released from this part of his obligation.

Red Lion (Foundation "G")

At some time after 1743 Penman's dwelling (foundation F) was replaced by the structure of foundation G. The date of replacement is uncertain.

The two advertisements of 1766 and 1768 suggest a possible date.³ Stephen Buck, who removed his business in 1766, might have occupied the Penman house, and this house might have been worn out by this time if inadequately maintained (especially if built by Sharp before 1719).

The lapse of two years from 1766 to 1768 would have allowed time for the building of a new structure. Lenox, who occupied the house in the latter year, set up a lodging house as well as a wigmaker's business, and the combination would have been difficult if not impossible unless the house of 1743 had been enlarged in some fashion. Thus it seems at least possible that the second structure was erected in 1766, 1767, or 1768.

There are several indications that the building of foundation G, whatever the date of its construction, is identical with that of Photograph N6524 and of insurance Policies No. 585 and 1387:

• (1)At its west and foundation G is broken off short of the corner. It is possible, however, to assume that the corner was as much as 7 feet east of the Lee house. Seven feet is the least distance between the two buildings that it seems possible to assume from the photograph. (It is possible to establish an approximate scale for the photograph by reducing the ^its perspective to an elevation, inverting the usual method of perspective projection, the basis of measurement being the known distance between the Lee and Donegan houses.)
• (2)

  The width of the building of foundation G, measuring south to the line of the Lee house (which coincides with foundation F), is 26½ feet. Evidence as to the shape of the roof is not conclusive. The most likely possibilities would be an A roof in front with a rear lean-to, or an "asymmetrical" roof ^section (with a steep - 6 - pitch in front and a longer, flatter pitch on the rear). The latter is perhaps the more likely in view of the near neighborhood and probable influence of the Vaiden and Scrivener houses, both of which have asymmetrical roof sections.

  Photograph N6524 could be interpreted as indicating either ^{type of} roof section, the roof having sagged to such an extent that the outline is indefinite.

• (3)The two insurance policies agree with the photograph in their description of the building as of wood, one story high. Policy 585 has it 27 feet wide; policy 1387, 26 feet. This is substantial agreement with the facts, for the true width appears to be 26½ feet.
• (4)Policy 1387 gives the length as 48 feet. The figure in Policy 585 was so blotted that it might be taken as either 40 or 48 feet; the latter is assumed to have been intended, on the strength of Policy 1387 and because the longer dimension agrees with the photograph as nearly as can be determined.
• (5)Policy No. 645 (Lot 56: Greenhow) shows the name of Crump in Lot 57. The dimension of 10 feet is given between the Greenhow (presumably the existing Lee) house and the Crump dwelling (presumably the Red Lion). This is apparently a discrepancy, for the distance is taken on the basis of other evidence ^seems to be 7 feet. It is possible, however, that an insurance measurement might have been inaccurate to that extent, especially when it did not apply directly to the property insured and might have been taken by eye or from memory. Any inclination to minimize the risks of insurance would naturally take the form of generous statement of distances to adjacent buildings.

An original manuscript deed in the Department of Research and Record, dated May 23, 1815, reads in part:

(Robert Anderson and Helen his wife sell to Edward Teagle, for consideration of $400)

"...all that part of the house and lot … beginning at the corner of Greenhow's lot on the main street in Williamsburg, and running eastwardly twenty-four feet across a lane and into the dwelling until it reaches a partition between that part - 7 - of the same which is occupied by the said Teagle and that part now occupied by Bray, being about one-third of the dwelling…"

This deed clearly refers to the west section of the Red Lion as indicated on insurance Policy 1387, taken out only twenty days previously.⁴ That section (comprising about a third of the building's length) was described in the policy as occupied by Edw. Teagle. A porch is shown in front of it.

Particularly helpful is the dimension of twenty-four feet from the lot line, locating the first cross partition and consequently the chimney of Photograph N6524. An assumption ^{But it} is still necessary, however, as to ^{to assume} whether the dimension was taken to the east or west side of the partition, and whether the first floor (where it ^{the partition} would be of wood) or in the basement (where it would be of masonry, and therefore thicker). It is also uncertain whether the dimension was accurate to the inch, or whether it happened to come to an ^{was taken to the nearest even} foot. In view of these uncertainties the dimension may be taken as definite only within about a foot.

The photograph shows clearly that the chimney was nearly square, and that it emerged from the roof north of the ridge, possibly centered between the north and the south walls.

A building 48 feet long, as this was, must have had a second chimney. This chimney does not appear in the photograph ^presumably because of a tree in front of this part A of the house. Probably it was at the east end of the building, since there were undoubtedly three divisions of which the western and central divisions could be heated from the western chimney. There is no evidence whether the east chimney was an exterior or an interior one.

Three doors are shown in the photograph, and six first-floor windows; one at each end,, and two pairs between the doors. Only one dormer is visible, over the west end window. Presumably it was balanced by another dormer over the east window. A middle dormer would be looked for above the center door, but the evidence - 8 - of the photograph is to the contrary. A small opening in the foliage of the tree, where the roof of A dormer in this location would join the main roof, actually shows only a patch of the main roof. It must be concluded that the third dormer (which almost certainly existed on a roof of this length) was farther to the east.

Brick Kitchen ("H") (N 1206)

Policy No. 1387 shows two kitchens behind the Red Lion, one of brick to the east and one of wood to the west. Only scanty evidences of these kitchens remain.

Twenty-four feet north of the center division of the house was the foundation of a large chimney (inside measurement 3 x 6½ feet), so located that it must have stood at the west end of a kitchen. Immediately south of it is a corner of foundation which lines with the chimney on the west side, and might have been the corner of a wall. If so, the kitchen if symmetrical was about 16 feet wide and the chimney was an inside one. But it is possible that the small foundation may have served some other purpose. There are no definite evidences of bond at any corner where a brick wall might have joined the chimney.

But at the northeast corner there was a gap where a wall might possibly have joined the chimney. If this was the fact, the chimney was an outside one, and the foundation to the south must have served as an extension of some sort, such as a warming oven, closet, etc. One argument in favor of this theory is that the kitchen might then have been more than 16 feet wide. whereas (16 feet would appear somewhat narrow where the chimney is of such large size.)

The long dimension of the kitchen was no doubt east and west, perpendicular to the chimney.

The evidence of insurance policies ^is usually trustworthy with respect to materials. It is likely that this kitchen was of brick as stated in policy No. 1387. - 9 - East of H, extending part way into the fireplace opening, was the corner of a brick foundation of unknown purpose and unknown but early date.

Wood Kitchen ("I")

The only evidence of a kitchen behind the west division of the house is a corner of foundation 20 to 25 feet northwest of H. The interior angle is to the southeast. This might be part of a chimney foundation. The north leg is thicker (17") than the west leg (13"), an indication that the fireplace faced south (for the back wall of a chimney was normally thicker than the side walls). The insurance plat shows this kitchen (as well as the other) as having its long dimension from east to west. In this matter of orientation ^{the graphic representation of dimensions} insurance policies are often at variance with ^{out of scale on the evidence of} known facts. In the case of kitchen I the determining fact (apart from the shape of the foundation) would appear to be the narrowness of the space available between I and a well 13 feet east of it. Kitchen I, if it ran north and south, would have been much less crowded than if it ran east and west.

It is possible that I was the kitchen 12 x 16 feet in size which Penman undertook to erect in the lease of 1742.

The location of the "billyard house" of the same lease is unknown, unless this was the building which later became kitchen H.

The location of the smokehouse of 8 x 8 feet, mentioned in the same lease, is also unknown.

Well

Six feet north of H was a well with a square brick head. The date of this well could not be determined. But the shaft, if not the brick head, was probably of early date, for no evidences of another well were discovered on lot 57.

Late Foundation (J)

North of H and east of the well is a foundation which indicates a building of at least two rooms - the east room nearly twelve feet square and the - 10 - west room possibly the same. A chimney at north center heated both rooms with diagonal fireplaces. Extant wall foundations varied from 9 to 14 inches in thickness, the center and south walls having been originally 9 inches thick, and later made thicker.

The brickwork is of a late character. Since the building does not appear on the insurance plat of 1815, it may have been built at a later date. There are no ulterior clues to its identity or its date.

The west room must have included the well inside its walls. Possibly the well of Lot 58 was used while this building was standing.

Unfortunately, no records are available from the archaeological excavation (1930-31) of exact sizes and types of bricks, and other characteristics of brick such as color, hardness, type and quality of mortar, bond, thickness of joints, etc. But the archaeological report of 1932 contains estimates of the probable relative age of each foundation in Area C.

Stable at Rear (Area H)

The Nicholson Street or north end of Lot 57 was excavated as Area H of Block 17. in In the northwest corner was uncovered an L-shaped foundation of 9-inch brickwork, traceable towards the southeast corner by fragments of wall, and elsewhere by crushed brick and fill. The north end could not be precisely located.

The southeast leg was about 9 x 10 feet in extent, and the main building might have been from the indefinite indications-about 14 x 28. A fill at the northwest corner, about 5½ x 7½ feet in size and 3 feet deep (possibly a manure pit) might indicate the north end of the building.

The size and location of this building indicate that it might have been a stable.