• 279 
 S9 U2 
 opy 1 
 
 
 tf^ 
 
 A SKRTCH 
 
 OF 
 
 The Town of Sufflmeryille, 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 BY 
 
 LEGARE WALKER, 
 CORPORATION COUNSEL. 
 
 J9 JO. 
 
A SKETCH 
 
 OF 
 
 The Town ol Summerville. 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 BY 
 LEGARE WALKER, 
 
 CORPORATION COUNSEL. 
 
 19 10. 
 
/ /^ / / 
 
 5fM/. 
 
 
 Gi** 
 
 }UN 2^ titt 
 
A SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE. 
 
 So far as is known there is no complete, connected and full 
 history of the Town of SiimmervJlle, and though it would be 
 impossible in an article, limited as this must necessarily be, 
 to attempt such a history, I shall endeavor to set forth in a 
 more or less connected narrative, such facts and references as I 
 have been able to gather in the limited time at my disposal. 
 They will thus be preserved and possibly, as a nucleus, will aid 
 some future chronicler in the preparation of a more pretentious 
 History. 
 
 Mr. Henry A. M. Smith, who has always taken a lively in- 
 terest in historical research, and especially in the history and 
 traditions of the lower section of the State — himself a resident 
 of Summerville for many years — contributed to the April, 1905, 
 number of the South Carolina Historical and Genealogical 
 Magazine an article entitled "The Town of Dorchester in 
 South Carolina — a Sketch of its History". This sketch is the 
 repository of much valuable information as to the genesis of 
 Summerville, both as to its settlement and its early land 
 grants, but more particularly the latter. 
 
 Some of the land now in the corporate limits of Summerville 
 seems to have been granted as early as 1699 — 1700, and all of it 
 not much latter than this period. With Dorchester, a flourish- 
 ing town, only about six miles distant, it is reasonable to sup- 
 pose that the white man was here probably as a very temporary 
 settler while engaged in hunting, and occupations dependent 
 upon the forests, in the early part of the Eighteenth century. 
 Mr. Smith, in the article above referred to says : 
 
 "As early as 1729 the land where the old^ill dam ran across 
 the swamp in Summerville was known as 'Saw mill land'. It 
 had no connection with the tract of 123 acres reserved as 'Mill 
 land' near the town of Dorchester, but was the land around the 
 saw mill which was operated by Daniel Axtell prior to 1707. 
 Ever since that date this part of Booshoo Creek, adjacent to 
 Summerville, has been known as 'Saw Mill Branch'. 
 
4 SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLK 
 
 In 1882, before the present canal down thv3 swamp was 
 excavated, the old mill dam was practically intact. Some of 
 the old timbers of solid cypress remained on the old mill sito. 
 The oldest inhabitant could remember no one who had seen the 
 mill run, and the growth of pines showed that no water could 
 have been kept on the pond for near a century." 
 
 Very little is known in regard to the early history of the 
 town as a settlement, and there seems to be no record of the 
 date of its settlement. This is not surprising, for the town 
 was evidently never "planted" as was Dorchester, nor 
 "settled" at a specific date by any band cf settlers: the prob- 
 ability is that persons from Dorchester and its neighborhood 
 resided in this locality from time Vo time, that it had been 
 tried as a place of residence and that its advantages of health 
 and climate were well known, before it became an established 
 and localized settlement. 
 
 As to its probable settlement Mr. Smith, in the article be- 
 fore referred to, says : 
 
 "On March T), 1788, scarcely five years after the close of the 
 war, the following entry is made in Bishop Asbury's Journal : 
 
 'March 5, 1788, I passed Dorchester where there are remains 
 of what appears to have been once a considerable town. There 
 are the ruins of an elegant church and the vestiges of several 
 well built houses.' 
 
 With the decadence of Dorchester, and p-^rhaps accelerating 
 it, came the foundation and growtii of the town of Summer- 
 ville, situated at first about five miles off, on the headwaters of 
 the same creek that flowed by Dorchester, and on a part of the 
 grant originally made to Gershom Hawks in 1705. 
 
 Prior to this date (1811) its occupancy had begun. The 
 ]danters of the neighljorhood, in search of some healthy retreat 
 during summer, where security ct)uld l)o liad from the malarial 
 disorders that beset their fertile bui unhealthy plantations 
 found tliat the pine land ridges of Summcrville answered tlie 
 purpose. There was a thick growth of the long leaf or yellow 
 pine, and a succession of dry sandy ridges, with a sufficient fall 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE. 5 
 
 in the water courses to carry off the excessive raiu and 
 moisture. It was foiiiid to be free from the pest >f mosquitoes 
 and the nights, even in summer, fresh and invigorating. 
 
 From about 1790, little by little one planter after another 
 made a summer settlement and built a house, and the abandoned 
 and decaying houses of Dorchester (from which materials, and 
 especially bricks were removed) formed the basis and furnished 
 the foundations of the new town, until nothing but crumbling 
 piles of broken fragments of brick were left to mark the sites 
 of the hearths of the old one." Again 
 
 "The town of Summerville, altho' in some respects the 
 descendant of Dorchester, as being in part situate upon the 
 original Dorchester grant, and in part upon land granted to or 
 owned by persons affiliated with the original Dorchester 
 settlers (Hawks and Stewart) and in part originally constructed 
 from materials derived from old Dorchester, yet was settled 
 by entirely different people. The effect of the exodus to 
 Georgia was such that among the earlier settlers of Summerville 
 there is not one bearing the name of any of the "Church" who 
 migrated from Dorchester, Massachusetts." 
 
 Mr. John Gadsden, between May 17th, 1901, and January 
 17th, 1902, (both inclusive,) writing as "Summerville's Oldest 
 Iidiabitant" contributed a number of articles on the "History 
 of Summerville" to the "Summerville News", a weekly news- 
 paper then published in the town. These are very interesting 
 and contain some valuable data, but, save for a few articles, 
 they deal more particularly with tne families connected with 
 the town, the location of their residences, and the personal 
 reminiscences of the writer, than with the history of the town 
 itself — indeed his expressed intention was to write simply a 
 narrative. 
 
 The issues of the "Summerville News" containing these 
 articles are now in the possession of Mr. Gadsden's family 
 who very kindly lent them to the writer of this sketch, with 
 permission to use such parts as might be desired. The^' are 
 probably the only copies extant, and it is to be hoped that 
 
6 8EBTCH OF SUMMERVILLB 
 
 something will be done to preserve them by reprinting them in 
 pamphlet form, or some other manner. 
 
 Arguing from "natural evidences" around Sumraerville, 
 such as old trees on "charcoal kilns" and dams, and other 
 things tending to show the activities of civilized man in this 
 locality about such period, Mr. Gadsden concludes that "one 
 would not be warranted in asserting that the white man was not 
 here by 1750". This estimate is certainly conservative, for as 
 before stated he was probably here in the early part of that 
 century. 
 
 It is, however, well known that the planters of the Parishes 
 of St. George and St. Paul between 1785 and 1800 made 
 Summerville their place of residence in summer. The resi- 
 dences were not pretentious, more in the nature of summer 
 camps, and they lived (as two writers have expressed it) in 
 more or less a "marooning fashion". The village was deserted 
 in the winter, and the character of the occupation remained 
 thus until 1830 or 1835. 
 
 In Mr. Gadsden's article of June 7th, 1901, he says: 
 
 "What families were the first to make Summerville their 
 summer resort has never been decided. It was claimed by some 
 that, possibly. Miss Frances Hopkins and her half-brother. Col. 
 Walter, were among the first. Miss Hopkins lived where Mrs. 
 James Jervey now does," (at this date 1910 owned by Mr. John 
 A. Burgess,) "and will be remembered by the children of 
 that day for her beautiful shell and wax work. She has left 
 more enduring mementoes of herself in certain trees she 
 planted. With this family, who were from the neighborhood 
 of Dorchester, came also the Warings, Mileses, Perrys, Boyles, 
 and Boones — some from St. George's and some from St. Paul's 
 parish. Very few years must have intervened between the 
 coming of the first and that of the last of the families named. 
 
 The venerable Mrs. Pickens, the mother of Mrs. J. J. Miles, 
 Bpoke to me of a visit made by her to Summerville in 1808. 
 Her visit was to the household of Mr. Jeremiah Miles who lived 
 in the lot (now divided into two lots) the property at this date 
 of Mrs. M. E. Johnson. Mrs Pickens recalled the fact that 
 several other families were spending the summer here and the 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLBi 
 
 place seemed to her to be a small village. The Mileses, then 
 were here, and certainly the Warings and the Perrys, jtossibly 
 also the Boyles. The Boones did not come till about 1818." 
 
 Again in Mr. Gadsden's article of June 14th, 1901, appears a 
 copy of "A list giving the number of houses and the names of 
 the occupants in the village of ISummerville in 1828, made by 
 the Rev. Philip Gadsden" (his father). The number of houses 
 so listed is twenty-three. 
 
 This settlement was s'lbsequently known as "Old Summer- 
 ville," to distinguish it from "New Summerville" next referred 
 to. (The plats of Old Summerville are referred to hereafter). 
 
 In 1881 the South Carolina Canal and Railroad Co. purchased 
 a large tract of land adjacent to "Old Summerville" and the 
 following year had a portion of this tract laid out into the 
 Village of "New Summerville" and a plat of the same made 
 (of which we shall have something to say hereafter). 
 
 In Mr. Gadsden's article of July 2'i, 1901, he states that a 
 change took place in the character of the settlement about 1835, 
 the families, or certain of them, remaining in the village the 
 year round. In subsequent articles that "New Summerville" 
 was settled by families from Charleston and not tlie "Plan- 
 tors' families" who resided in "Old Summerville". That in 
 April 1848 the first accommodation train between Charleston 
 and Summerville was puc on, running in the summer only, and 
 that it was not until 1858, after the yellow fever epidemics in 
 Charleston had brought Summerville into pron)inence as a 
 health resort and its population had increased that the accom- 
 modation train was operated throughout the year. 
 
 In 1847 the "Village of Summervillt" was incorporated, 
 the corporate limits including "Old Summerville" and 
 a part of "New Summerville," but not that part of "New 
 Summerville" to the Northeast of the Railroad track. 
 
 It is said that the main object in incorporating the town was 
 to secure protection for the trees by proper municipal regula- 
 tion. This is probable for from the early settlement of the 
 village its pine trees have been jealously guarded. The Rail- 
 road Company inserted a special clause in their deeds to lots in 
 New Summerville for the protection of the pine trees (vid. 
 
^ SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLK 
 
 hereafter), the motto on the town's seal is "Sacra Pinus 
 Esto'', (General Ordinances, Sec. 1,) and by ordinances now in 
 force cutting of pine trees in the town limits, even on one's 
 own premises, is prohibited except upon petition to council and 
 its consent, and these trees are otherwise protected b}' pro- 
 vision for the destruction of dead trees, by which it has always 
 been asserted, live ones are destroyed. (Gen. Ordinances Sec 
 lliand 120). 
 
 The writer has the Original "Plan of the village of Summer- 
 ville now Incorporated Drawn by F. C. Schultz May 1849". 
 Though designated a "Plan" it is more accurately speaking a 
 map or sketch, for it does not seem to be drawn to any scale 
 and shows only a few streets — none of those regularly laid out 
 on Detmold's Plan of 1832. It is quite valuable, however, as 
 it sh( ws the locations of the residences at this date, the names 
 of those occupying them being given in each instance. The 
 railroad is its Norrhenstern boundary, none of the lots to the 
 I^orthenst of the railroad being shown. It evidently purports 
 to follow the lines of the town according to the Act of Incorpo- 
 ration, 
 
 Except for data relating to the title to Summerville lands 
 (which will be hereafter disclosed) these are perhaps the only 
 facts and references now obtainable relating to the settlement 
 of the town and its early history as a community or village. 
 
 From the foregoing and other sources of information, the 
 history of liie town may be thus succinctly recorded: The 
 first lirant covering Summerville land was in 1099 — 1700. The 
 white man was possibly here, i)robably a very temporary settler 
 while engaged in occupations dependent on the forests, in the 
 early part of the eii.hteenth century. The necessity for a 
 healthy summer resorl imjjelled the families from the surround- 
 ing ]ilaiita1 ions to seek one, and the pine ridges of Summerville 
 attrrcting them it was i)rol)ably first settled about 1785. Be- 
 tween this (late and ]808 the l.ouses were not of a permauMit 
 c'laractcr, the settlements being more in the nature of summer 
 can)i)S, It was solely a summer resort — hence the name "Sum- 
 merville." This settlement continued to grow, and in 1828 it 
 was a suV)stantial little village, containing about t\\ enty-three 
 
SKETCH OF SIJMMERVILLE. 9 
 
 houses. It <;radually increaseri, but still only a summer reeort, 
 until about 1835, when there were families who remained for 
 the entire year. The building; of the railroad, and the facili- 
 ties thus afforded for reaching Charleston, t)»e establishment of 
 New Summerville by the Railroad Company and its success in 
 inducin<r persons to purchase lots nnd build, the yellow fever 
 epidemics in (.harleston, between 1852 and 1858, which drove 
 many of its families here, and later the accommodation trains — 
 all contributed to the substantial growth of both "Old" and 
 "New" Summerville, and by 1860 it had progressed from a 
 Village to quite a little Town, a large portion of its population 
 l)eing permanent and continual residents, (Mnisideraldy aug- 
 mented each summer by a temjiorary intlux from ('harlcsion, 
 but too near this City to prosper to any extent comnuM-ciaily. 
 
 Its growth suffered, in common with most other Southern towns, 
 durmg the War between the Sections, but boiran with ronowod 
 energy shortly afterwards, and has steadily continued. Its com- 
 mercial and business growth, however, can scarcely be said to have 
 begun earlier than ten years ago, but it has been steady and per- 
 manent, and the town has completely ceased to be dependent upon 
 Charleston for its necessities, and save in very few particulars, it 
 is self supporting. 
 
 The Summerville of to-da,y is a thrifty, self-reliant and substan- 
 tial business town, a flourishing suburban residential town, and a 
 renowned and popular winter and summer resort ; a combination 
 which must surely lead her to the next and higher grade, a popu- 
 lar and prosperous City. 
 
 HISTORY OF ITS LAND TITLES. 
 
 Having touched on the history of Summerville as a settlen ent 
 and town, and such oocuri-ences in this connection whicli seonnd 
 of sufficient importance to be noted, I shall now endeavor to give 
 a short history of the title to the lands embraced in the town. As 
 far as possible there will be presented only such facts as the re- 
 cords, plats and reliable repo.sitories furnish, and this will be de- 
 
10 SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE 
 
 parted from only to record matters so well founded on tradition 
 or of such evident interest, as to merit recogrnition. 
 
 It was my intention to trace the history of Summerville'sland 
 back to grants. To connect any specific tract of land with an old 
 grant is, at best, an exacting and difficult task, but when the grants 
 are at very early dates, (as in Summerville's case,) and many links 
 in the chain of title are not disclosed by the records in the public 
 offices, thus rendering it necessary to seek for information else- 
 where, the undertaking becomes one which requires years of work 
 and research. 
 
 Having pursued the investigation far enough to demonstrate 
 that to connect with grants would require so much time that it 
 would be impossible to publish the results in this pamphlet, I de- 
 termined to begin the history of the title about the end of the 
 Eighteenth century, when several large tracts covered the present 
 site of the town. 
 
 I was resolved, however, to continue my investigations, from 
 time to time, in an endeavor to complete the work as originally 
 planned, for I felt that these early f'ata should be collected and 
 preserved, and that by so doing 1 would confer a public benefit, 
 my compensation being the pleasurable emotions of a pathfinder, 
 coupled with the satisfaction derived from the gratuitous perform- 
 ance of a ))ublic work. 
 
 At this juncture, however, Mr. A. S. Salley, Jr., Secretary of 
 the State Historical Commission, referred me to Mr. Smith's art- 
 icle on Dorchester heretofore referred to, and I not only found 
 that this article contained much valuable and interesting data in 
 regard to Summerville, and in particular the history of her early 
 land grants, but also that Mr. Smith had been collecting for years 
 with much painstaking care and toil, valuable papers and data 
 upon which his sketch was based, many of which related to the 
 genesis of Summerville's land grants. It, therefore, was evident 
 that any further investigation along these lines could accomplish 
 nothing more than had already been accomplished, save possibly 
 to elaborate. 
 
 Realizing that the information in Mr. Smith's possession was 
 far too important not to be permanently recorded in some local 
 repository where those seeking for Summerville's history would 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE. 11 
 
 most likely refer, the writer requested him to prepare a 
 short sketch of the early history of Summerville lands. This he 
 very kindly consented to do, and the following is taken from this 
 sketch: 
 
 "The present Town of Summerville is situated in the main upon 
 parts of three original grants, viz : 
 
 (1) A grant for 2250 acres dated 1st February 1699—1700 to 
 John Stevens (Off. Secy. State, Vol. 38, p. 298). 
 
 (2) A grant for 1000 acres dated 17 May 1700 to Robert 
 Fenwick (Off. Secy. State, Vol. 38, p. 400). 
 
 (3) A grant for 1000 acres dated 15 Sept. 1705 to Gershom 
 Hawks (Off. Secy, of State, Vol. 38, p. 523). 
 
 THE 2250 ACRE GRANT TO JOHN STEVENS. 
 
 This grant with another grant of the same date to John 
 Stevens for 1800 acres formed the tract known as 'Dorchester' 
 and was subdivided among the Dorchester settlers. The whole 
 combined tract of 4050 acres was subdivided into lots, but lots 12, 
 13, 14, and 19 in the second division were all parts of the 2250 
 acre grant. 
 
 John Stevens conveyed lots 12 and 14, each containing 45 acres 
 to Michael Bacon on 21 Sept. 1702. Michael Bacon devised these 
 two lots to his son Jonathan Bacon and on 19 December 1744 
 Jonathan Bacon conveyed them to Daniel Stewart. (Off. Hist. 
 Commission Memo. Bk. 7, p. 474) 
 
 Lot 13 also containing 45 acres was conveyed by John Stevens 
 on 21 Sept. 1702 to Thomas Osgood, who on 26 May 1737 conveyed 
 it to Daniel Stewart (ibid). 
 
 Lot No. 19 containing 45 acres was conveyed by John Stevens 
 to Samuel Sumner (Off. Hist. Com. Memo. Bk. 5, p. 242), who 
 on 11 Sept. 1707 conveyed it to Gershom Hawks, 
 
 THE ROBERT FENWICK 1000 ACRE GRANT. 
 
 This seems to have passed to Lady Elizabeth Axtell for on 12th 
 May 1712 she conveyed it to Gershom Hawks (M. C. O. 
 Charleston Bk. K, p. 246) and he conveyed off 500 acres to 
 Daniel Axtell for on 6th. March 1729 Daniel Axtell Senr. and 
 Daniel Axtell Junr, of Bristol, Massachusetts, conveyed 500 
 
12 SKETCH OP 8UMMERVILLB. 
 
 acres of this Fenwick grant to Daniel Stewart (Oflf. Hist. Comn. 
 Memo. Bk. 1, p. 160). 
 
 THE GER8HOM HAWKS 1000 ACRE GRANT. 
 
 This seems to have passed into the hands of Lady Rebecca 
 Axtell for by her Will she devised it to several people, devising 
 100 acres to Hannah Stewart wife of Daniel Stewart (Off. Hist. 
 Comn. Memo. Bk. 8, p. 238). 
 
 What interest Daniel Axtell Senr. and Daniel Axtell Junr., of 
 Bristol, Massachusetts, had in this 100 acres does not appear but 
 in their deed to Daniel Stewart of 6th March 1729 they include 
 this tract of 100 acres. 
 
 Daniel Stewart being thus possessed of lots 12, 13, and 14, and 
 of 500 acres part of the Fenwick grant and 100 acres part of the 
 Hawks grant, on 24 Dec. 1766 conveyed the whole (estimated as 
 760 acres) to Michael Geiger (Off. Hist. Coran. Memo. Bk. 
 8, p. 238). 
 
 Michael Geiger died intestate in 1768 and the foregoing 750 
 acres descended to his son and heir at law Jacob Geiger. * * * 
 
 Gershom Hawks to whom lot 19 and the Fenwick grant had 
 been conveyed died leaving the land to his sons. Either before 
 or after his death 500 acres of this grant was transferred to 
 Daniel Axtell, Senr., or Daniel Axtell, Junr., leaving 500 acres 
 which with lot 19 eventually passed to his son Moses Hawks, as 
 the heir at law of his father Gershom Hawks and his brother, 
 Thomas Hawks. After the death of Moses Hawks his executors 
 on 15 December 1737 convej^ed this 545 acres to Daniel Stewart 
 who dying intestate the lands descended to his eldest son John 
 Stewart who on 31 January 1760 conveyed the 545 acres to Sam- 
 uel Wainwright— (Off. Hist. Comn. Memo. Bk. 6, p. 245). 
 
 Samuel Wainwright on 17 November, 1764, had purchased from 
 Josiah Smith, Executor of Dr. Samuel Stevens, a tract of 1300 
 acres (Off. Hist. Comn. Memo. Bk. 2, p. 485), which had been 
 granted to Dr. Stevens on 16 January, 1735, (Off. Secy, of State 
 Royal Grant Bks. Vol. 2, p. 207). This 1300 acres, with the 545 
 acres purchased from John Stewart and 500 acres purchased by 
 Samuel Wainwright from Matthias Hutchinson, made together 
 a tract of some 2345 acres which Wainwright owned at his deatl^ 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE. 13 
 
 in 1784 and passed under his will to his nephew Richard 
 Wainwright and niece Elizabeth Hopkins — (Probate Court 
 Charleston, Book A, p. 416). 
 
 By some family arrangement the land seems to have passed to 
 Richard Wainwright for in 1794 Richard Wainwright mortgaged 
 to Miss Elizabeth Hopkins a tract of 2300 acres which seems to 
 be this land. (M. C. O. Charleston Bk. W. No. 6, p. 384).* * * 
 
 Detmolds map of New Summerville includes lot No. 19 and part 
 of the 500 acres part of the Robert Fenwick grant. 
 
 A small part of the present Town of Summerville lying West 
 of the 747 acres portrayed on the map of Paj'ne of December 1832, 
 and also West of the line of the 2300 acres purchased by the South 
 Carolina Canal and Railroad Company according to the map at- 
 tached to the deed to that Company is said to have been originally 
 
 granted to — Stewart, but I have never been able to trace 
 
 the title back to any grant to him. 
 
 In 1798 one James Stewart took out a grant for 500 acres. A 
 location of the plat attached to this grant shows plainly that it was 
 an infringement of previous grants. It covers lots 12, 13, 14, and 
 19 of the Dorchester grant and also a part of the Robert Fenwick 
 grant. It also covered other parts of the Dorchester grant. As 
 to so much of this grant to James Stewart as infringed on the ti- 
 tles held by Jacob Williman and Richard Wainwright neither 
 James Stewart nor any of his heirs seem to have ever asserted 
 title. At least I have never seen any titles to that portion derived 
 from Stewart. As to such part of it, however, as covered other 
 parts of the 2250 acre grant (lying South of the Saw Mill Branch) 
 and which part seem to have been abandoned by the persons to 
 whom John Stevens conveyed or their heirs this James Stewart 
 grant seems to have been in part at least asserted and maintained. 
 In 1803 Stephen Nettles took out a grant for 1000 acres (OflF. 
 Secy, of State Grant Bk. H, No. 5, p. 303). The plat attached to 
 this grant when located apparently covers much of the land in- 
 cluded in the James Stewart Grant but whether any title was ever 
 asserted under it I cannot say." 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that the lands now within the town 
 
14 SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE. 
 
 limits came from several diflferent sources. I shall now take up 
 the history of these tracts from the point when Mr. Smith's sketch 
 stops and bring it up to recent times. 
 
 The larger tracts from which these lands came are most fre- 
 quently referred to locally as follows: 1. The Williman, Moer or 
 Gradsden Tract — (which includes Old Summerville); 2. The 
 Wainwright or Railroad Tract (New Summerville); 3. The James 
 Stewart or Nettles Tract; 4. and the Daniel Stewart Tract). 
 
 1. THE WILLIMAN, MOER OR GADSDEN TRACT. 
 
 Approximately speaking this embraces the Southern portion of 
 the town, the lines running about as follows: 
 
 Beginning at the intersection of the road and the canal back of 
 Mr. Pedder's and Mr. Rivers's, thence to the Stallsville Road 
 near the residence of Dr. Muckenfuss, thence following the line of 
 the James Stewart or Nettles Tract to the Old Methodist Church, 
 and thence East along the line of this tract to a point near the 
 'intersection of Main Street and the next Street South of 
 Seventh South Street, thence in a straight line Northwardly 
 (separating it from the Wainwright tract) to a point a little 
 North of the termination of Sixth South Street thence in a 
 straight line Northwestwardly (separating it from the 
 Wainwright tract) to the intersection of Hickory Street and 
 the prolongation of Fifth South Street, thence in a general 
 Southwestwardly direction to the Southern limits of the town. 
 (I have not been able to satisfy myself exactly where this 
 last line ran, but am inclined to think that it so ran as to 
 exclude at least that portion of the town lying to the West of 
 Central Avenue.) 
 
 (Outside of the town this Tract covers Germantown, Mrs. 
 Weed's, Mr. Pedder's and adjacent properties.) 
 
 This is the 750 acres heretofore traced to Jacob Geiger 
 (page 226). From him the title passed as follows : 
 
 In 1809 Reuben Levy as Attorney for Anna Catherine and 
 Owen Ross her husband brought suit against Jacob Williman 
 (Charleston County Bills"l809, No. 10), The Bill in this case 
 
 alleges that Geiger appointed Jacob Williman his Attorney, 
 
 that John J. Geiger intermarried with Anna Catherine, who ha4 — 
 
SKETCH or 8UMMERVILLK. 16 
 
 merits to said wife and children. That John J. Geiger died in 
 1795 and his widow married Owen Ross, Jacob Wiiliman in his 
 Answer alleged that he then held a tract of land owned partly by 
 Estate of Jacob Geiger, but against which he had claims. In the 
 Report in this case (Charleston Countj^ Report Book 2, p. 115) 
 the property is described and report made as to the status of the 
 holding. By Decree dated Nov. 16, 1810 (Charleston County- 
 Minute Book No. 11, p 60) the property was ordered sold and 
 accordingly, William H. Gibbes Master by deed dated Apr. 8th, 
 1811 (R. M. C. office for Charleston County Book Y 8, p. 304) 
 conveyed to Jacob Wiiliman among other lands the following : "a 
 tract of land of about 754 acres more or less, situate in said 
 parish & particularly described in a plat by Nathaniel Bradwell 
 Deputy Surveyor resurveyed for Daniel Stewart in October 1776 
 
 and then bounded Northwardly on lands of D. Blake now of , 
 
 Eastwardl.y by lands of the inhabitants of Dorchester and now 
 
 of .Southwardly on lands then of ." Jacob Willimaiv 
 
 by his last Will and Testament dated Aug. 1st ]820 and probated 
 Aug. 11th 1820 (Probate Court Charleston County Will Book F, 
 p. 201) directed that his property be sold, and under this power 
 the lands in question were sold to Wilbrandt Schmidt who 
 mortgaged the same to secure a pprtion of the purchase money. 
 Neither this deed nor mortgage is of record. Wilbrandt Schmidt 
 failing to pay the mortgage the Executors of Jacob Wiiliman 
 brought suit against him to foreclose the same (Charleston County 
 Bills 1829 No. 86). A Decree was passed in this case for a sale 
 (Decree Book No. 5, p. 150) and by Master's Report dated Jan. 
 31st 1829 (Report Book No. 5, p. 291) the lands are described and 
 a sale of the same is reported to have been made to Thomas Moer. 
 The records show no conveyance to Thomas Moer but they 
 disclose a purchase money mortgage from him to M. J. Kieth 
 Master dated March 11th 1828 (R. M. C. Office Charleston 
 County Book U 9, page 301). This mortgage covers among 
 other lands those in question. The entire property is described 
 as follows: "All that Plantation or Tract of Laud called Goldinfif 
 or Giveham containing about (1409) Fourteen hundred and nine 
 acres more or less as per plat of Robert Q. Pinckney made in 
 issue, that Geiger directed \Mlliman to make certain pay- 
 
16 SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE 
 
 April 1825 butting and bounding Northwardly on Land now or 
 late of Edward Huges, Eastwardly on Lands of the Estate of Col- 
 onel Walter, Southwardly on lands of Mrs. Singleton and West- 
 wardly on Lands of Thomas Lee Esquire and Thomas Moer, and 
 the Public Road to Bacon's Bridge, also the pine Land belonging 
 to the late Jacob Williman in that Neighborhood and according to 
 the above Survey of Robert Q. Pinckney and also about Two 
 Hundred and fifty acres more or less of pine Land not surveyed, 
 exclusive of the Lots of Pine Land heretofore sold, referred to in 
 said proceedings. The said Plantation or Tracts of Land being 
 situate, lying and being in Saint George's Parish Charleston 
 District." 
 
 Lots had evidently been sold off of this Tract which formed a 
 part of the Village of Summerville (Old Suminerville) and 
 Thomas Moer had a plat made which covered such lots, and others 
 adjoining the same, not then occupied. 
 
 The writer has a copy of this Plat in his possesion. This copy 
 was made by Robert K. Payne, "from the original protraction in 
 my (his) possession" of his "Plan of the Village of Old Summer- 
 ville, the property of Thomas Moore. Esq." (spelled also Moer) 
 "drawn December 1831". This Plan shows Forty-Nine Lots, not 
 over ten occupied, and contains a "Great Thoroughfare" ( now a 
 part of Carolina Avenue) and several Streets. Though desig- 
 nated "Old Summerville" it is in reality only a part of "Oid Sum- 
 merville" not containing within its lines many of the older settle- 
 ments such as Miss Hopkins's and those of the Mileses, the War- 
 ings, and others, its Northern line, in fact, not extending more 
 than two hundred and seventy-five yards North of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church. I am informed by Mr. Smith that there is 
 another plat made by R. K. Payne in Dec. 1832 of the whole 
 property called the Old Summerville Pineland Tract. I have never 
 seen this plat. 
 
 It is likely that Thomas Moer sold some of the lots covered by 
 the plan of 1831, probably not many, for shortly after the making 
 of this plan ho died (1834), leaving his last Will and Testament 
 dated Nov. 22. 1834 (Probate Court Charleston County Book H. 
 p. 66). 
 
 It seems that he was heavily involved and in 1835 Honore 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLB. 17 
 
 Mompoey filed a Creditors Bill against his Executrix Caroline 
 Moer and others (Charleston County Bills 1839 No. 67). These 
 proceedings resulted in a Decree dated January 22nd 1836 (Decree 
 Book 8, page 16) whereby "Golding" and the Pine land tracts 
 were ordered sold. Pursuant to this Decree, James W. Gray, 
 Master in Equity, sold the properties and by deed dated July 
 5th 1836, (R. M. C. Office Charleston County Book W 10, p. 196) 
 conveyed to Thomas Gadsden All that Tract of Land Situated 
 near Old Summerville, in the Parish of St. George's, Dorchester 
 in the District of Charleston and State aforesaid, Containing Seven 
 Hundred and Forty-Seven (747) Acres more or less: Butting and 
 Bounding to the North and West by lands of Mr. Stewart; East 
 by the village of New Summerville and lands granted to James 
 
 Stewart; and South on lands of Blake, as per plat drawn by 
 
 R. K. Payne in December, 1832. 
 
 Thomas Gadsden on July 5th 1836, mortgaged the said property 
 to Phillip Gadsden (R. M. C. Office Charleston County Book M-11 
 p. 201). Philip Gadsden assigned this mortgage to J. F. Edwards 
 who died^state (See Records Probate Court Charleston Count^O 
 and his Executors brought suit against Thomas Gadsden to fore- 
 close the mortgage (Charleston County Bills 1846 No. 45). By 
 Decree in this case filed Feb. 26th. 1846 (Minute Book No. 28, p. 
 100), the land was ordered sold, and pursuant to said Decree it 
 was sold to Rev. Philip Gadsden, who received a deed covering 
 the same from Edward R. Laurens, Master in Equity, dated Apr. 
 3rd 1845 (Office of Clerk of Court, Colleton County Book 1, p.551). 
 The property is described in this deed as follows: "All that Pine 
 Land, Situated, Lying, and Being in Summerville in the Parish 
 of St. George, Dorchester, Containing Seven Hundred and Fifty- 
 Seven (757) Acres more or less: Butting and Bounding to the 
 North and West by lands of J. Stewart; and South by lands of 
 Blake ; and East by the village of new Summerville, and lands of 
 J. Stewart as appears by a plat thereof drawn by R. K. Payne. 
 
 There is no need to follow the ramifications of this title further. 
 Suffice it to say that the Rev. Philip Gadsden and those of his 
 family deriving title from him, and under his Will, dated Jan. 
 2nd. 1868 (Probate Court Charleston County, Book O, page 218), 
 from time to time sold lots from this tract, which, as stated, origi- 
 
18 SKETCH or SUMMERVILLE 
 
 nally included within its bounds "Old Summer ville", as per 
 Payne's Plat thereof in 1831 for Thomas Moer. 
 
 All titles in this section of the town, therefore, are derived 
 through the Gadsdens, Thomas Moer, or some of the previous 
 owners as disclosed by the foregoing history of the title. 
 
 2. THE WAINWRIGHT TRACT ( NEW SUMMERVILLE ): 
 
 This embraces the entire business portion and the most thickly 
 settled part of the town. It covers ail of the town to the North 
 of the Railroad tract and adjoins on the South and West the 
 James Stewart, Williman, and Daniel Stewart tracts. No more 
 definite description is necessary, as there are plats showing the 
 exact lines, of which hereafter. 
 
 The title to this Tract has been heretofore traced to Richard 
 Wainwright (page 13). On July 28, 1791, Freeman and Pringle 
 obtained a judgment against Richard Wainwright and thereunder 
 Thomas Osborne, Sheriff of Colleton, sold to Robert Dewar on 
 Apr. 5th 1802, (R. M. C. Office Charleston County Book F No. 7 
 page 318) his tract of land by the following description: "All 
 that the aforesaid plantation or tract of Land containing Twenty- 
 Three Hundred Acres more or less, situate in the parish of Saint 
 George Dorchester in the State aforesaid, bounding on Lands of 
 Daniel Stewart, Jacob Williman and estate of Daniel Blake 
 deceased." 
 
 Robert Dewar died seized of the above described tract and it 
 passed under his Will dated Jan. 3rd, 1815, probated Jan. 10th, 
 1815, (Probate Court Charleston County Will Book E, page 467) 
 to Robert Dewar Wainwright, Elizabeth S. Bacot, Mary Ray, 
 Sarah Dewar Wainwright and Harriet Susannah Wainwright. 
 On May 8th, 1828, Thomas W. Bacot Jr. and wife filed a Bill for 
 Partition against T. W. Bacot Sr. and Elizabeth S. his wife and 
 others devisees of Robert Dewar (Charleston Countj^ Bills "1832 
 No. 4") A Writ of Partition was issued and it being discovered 
 that the 2300 acre tract was omitted a petition was filed setting 
 forth these facts and praying for a new Writ. The new Writ 
 was ordered Jan. 25th, 1831, Return made by the Commissioners 
 on Jan. 27th, 1831, and the land ordered to be sold. 
 
 James W. Gray, Master in Equity, accordingly on May 14th, 
 
SKETCH OF 8UMMBRVILLK 19 
 
 1831, (R. M. C. Office Charleston County Book H. 11, p. 510), 
 conveyed to the South Carolina (3anal and Railroad Company 
 which Company had been incorporated in 1827 (VIII Stats., 
 pp. 354, 355, et seq.) 1800 acres of the 2500 acre tract, described as 
 follows: "All that plantation or tract of pine land, containing 1800 
 acres, situate in the Parish of St. George, Dorchester, in the State 
 aforesaid. Bounding on lands of Daniel Stewart, Jacob Willi- 
 man, the Estate of Daniel Blake and the Executors of John Fer- 
 guson, deceased, being part of a tract containing formerly 2300 
 acres, conveyed by Thomas Osborne, Sherilf of Colleton Dis- 
 trict, to Robert Dewar by indenture bearing date April 5th, 1802. 
 Five hundred acres of which have been conveyed to the Executors 
 of John Ferguson on the day of the date of these presents." 
 
 In passing I note a? a matter of interest, an unusual endorsement 
 on the record of this deed, by Judge J. L. Petigrue. There is a 
 short abstract of title and then the following ; 
 
 "I believe the above to be a good title but the abstract is very 
 deficient in not showing that it has ever been granted. On the 
 presumption arising from possession I might take it myself if I 
 was in want of the land, but that is all I can say for it. 
 
 J. L. Petigrue." 
 
 Either Judge Petigrue or the abstractor who prepared the 
 abstract for his opinion, did not pursue his investigations with 
 sufficient assiduity, for the title has been carried back to the 
 grants as heretofore shown. 
 
 In 1832 The South Carolina Canal and Railroad Company had a 
 portion of this 1800 acre tract laid out into the Village of "New 
 Suramerville." 
 
 The Plan is by C. E. Detmold, is dated 1832 and was originally 
 recorded in the R. M. C. Office for Charleston County in Book F. 
 No. 10, p. 404. It now appears of record in that office in Plat 
 Book B, p. 97, and Plat Book C, page 38. The certificate thereon 
 is as follows. "Plan of New Summerville, situated in St. 
 George's Dorchester Parish and the District of Charleston, laid 
 out in March, 1832, by C. E. Detmold. Scale 400 ft. per inch." 
 
 The scheme of this Plan is as follows : The railroad runs 
 through the village from S. E. to N. W. There is an avenue on 
 each side of the track subsequently called "Railroad Avenue." 
 
20 SKETCH OF 8UMMERVILLE 
 
 All streets to the North of this Avenue are designated "First 
 North Street," "Second North Street," etc., up to "Sixth North 
 Street," and all streets to the South are designated "First South 
 Street," "Second South Street," etc., up to "Seventh South 
 Street." Main Street, 200 feet wide, runs at right angles to 
 these streets and the railroad station is located in this street. All 
 streets parallel to Main Street are named after trees, as follows : 
 (From East to West) Gum, Magnolia, (Main), Black-Jack, Pine, 
 Laurel, Hickorj^ Palmetto and Walnut. All streets except Main 
 are 100 feet wide. The squares contain four acres and are num- 
 bered. Some are subdivided. Some of the present streets were 
 not contemplated by this Plan, but are encroachments on the lots, 
 and in use for years, the most notable instance being Central 
 Avenue, which throughout its entire length encroaches on the 
 original squares. 
 
 The Railroad Company then proceeded to found this village and 
 to guard its health, most of the early deeds contained in sub- 
 stance the following recital : 
 
 "Every lot shall consist of one acre, and on every lot shall be 
 preserved not less than fifteen pine trees, measuring not less than 
 ten inches at the height of three feet above the natural surface of 
 the ground. And if any lot owner shall suffer the trees on his lot 
 to be cut or destroyed, so that there should not be found as many 
 as fifteen pines of the dimensions aforesaid on his lot, his title to 
 said lot shall be forfeited, and the fee simple and inheritance of 
 the said lot, shall vest in the said South Carolina Canal and Ry. 
 Co. One dwelling house and all sorts of out houses in the owner's 
 discretion may be built on one lot, but no tenant or ovs^ner 
 shall erect more than one dwelling house on one lot, nor shall any 
 lot be subdivided for the purpose of building more dwelling houses 
 than one on an acre. These regulations shall constitute the con- 
 ditions and the tenure by which the said tenants or owners shall 
 hold their estates in the said village, until altered, changed, or 
 abolished by the vote of two-thirds of the resident tenants or 
 owners actually occupying the said lots, and in case the above 
 regulations, or any of them shall be broken, the estate hereby 
 granted shall be forfeited and the same shall revert to and vest in 
 t,he said Company." 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE 21 
 
 The Habendum clause was to the grantee "and his Heirs and 
 
 assigns by the tenure aforesaid, so long as the said and 
 
 his heirs and assigns shall observe and keep the rules hereinbe- 
 fore mentioned'-. 
 
 These deeds were in most instances also executed by the Grantee. 
 
 The tradition is that many years ago a meeting was called and 
 held according to the provisions of these deeds, at which Judge 
 Benjamin C. Pressley presided, and that a vote was taken abolish- 
 ing the rules. But be this as it may under certain principles of 
 law (to state which would carry us beyond the scope of tliis article) 
 there need now be no apprehension on account of the conditions 
 of these deeds. 
 
 Most of the later conveyances by this Company and its succes- 
 sors do not contain any such restrictions and are straight convey- 
 ances in fee simple. 
 
 By the Act of 1842 the South Carolina Canal and Railroad 
 Company and the Louisville, Cincinnati and Charleston R. R. 
 Co. were united in one corporation (XI Stats., page 284.) 
 
 By the Act of 1843 the name was changed to South Carolina 
 Railroad Company (XI Stats., 273.) 
 
 It would require too extended a discussion to give the numerous 
 ramifications of the title to such portions of New Summerville as 
 were not disposed of by the last named corporations. It suffices 
 to say that the South Carolina Railroad Company became involved 
 and its properties were sold under Decree of the United States 
 Circuit Court in the case of Calvin Claflin against it. The South 
 Carolina Railway Company was then organized and acquired the 
 properties (1881 and 1883). This corporation likewise became 
 involved and under proceedings in the case of F. W. Bound 
 against it in the United States Circuit Court and certain other 
 suits ancillary thereto its properties were sold and acquired by 
 the South Carolina and Georgia Railroad Company (1894). 
 
 By the Act of 1902 (XXIII Stats. 1152) and the consolidation 
 thereby provided for, under proper proceedings the properties of 
 the South Carolina and Georgia Railroad Company became vested 
 in the Southern Rail way — Carolina Division, and all of the proper- 
 ties of this road were leased to the Southern Railway Company (a 
 corporation under the laws of Virginia.) 
 
23 SKETCH OP SUMMERVILLE 
 
 Lots have from time to time been sold by all of the corporations 
 above referred to, with the exception of the last two. I am under 
 the impression that none of the few remaining lots which passed 
 to these corporations has been disposed of by them. 
 
 3. THE JAMES STEWART OR NETTLES TRACT. 
 
 Approximately speaking this embraced that portion of 
 the town lying South of Seventh South Street, East of Main 
 Street, and North of Carolina Avenue (Stallsville Road), and 
 also that portion lying West of Main Street, embraced in the 
 following lines: Beginning at the intersection of Main 
 Street and the next Street South of Seventh South Street 
 and running thence almost due West to about the old 
 Methodist Church, thence in a Southeastwardly direction 
 to a point near the intersection of Main Street and 
 Carolina Auenue. 
 
 This tract is the Northern part of a Grant to James 
 Stf^wart by the State of South Carolina (Charles Pinckney 
 Governor) on February 5. 1798, of 500 acres of land, 
 situate in the District of Charleston, St. George Parish, 
 on Saw Mill Branch of Ashley River. (Sec. of State's 
 Office Vol. E No. 6, p. 232. Plat of same dated Feb. 3rd. 
 1798, Vol. No. 35, p. 160.) 
 
 The greater portion of this grant lies to the South of 
 Sumrnerville towards Stallsville, but the Northern portion 
 lies in the town as itated. 
 
 Mr. Smith states (page 13 hereof) that this is an 
 infringement of previous grants, also that it is apparently 
 covered by a subsequent grant of 1000 acres to Stephen 
 Nettles in 1803. 
 
 Tradition says that James Stewart died intestate, and 
 unmarried, leaving as his only heirs at law and dis- 
 tributees his two nieces Miss Esther A. Nettles and Miss 
 Mary S. Nettles and possibly a nephew, but be this as it may, 
 there is no question but that the Misses Nettles always 
 claimed this property and from time to time sold lots from 
 it, and titles to most, if not all, of the property in the 
 section of the town above referred to were made by 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLK" 23 
 
 them. 
 
 4. THE DANIEL STEWART TRACT, 
 
 This lay to the Northwest of Summerville and covers a 
 ■mall portion of the Northwestern section of the town 
 adjoining the Williinan and Wainwright Tracts. 
 
 Approximately speaking, this tract included the "Hickory 
 Hill" section (Gadsdens, Emerson, Barry) and that portion 
 of the town to the Northwest and Southwest thereof. I have 
 not been able to satisfy myself exactly where the lines ran 
 and as hereafter stated, it is possible that a small part of 
 another grant lay |between the "Stewart," "Wainwright" 
 and "Gadsden" tracts. 
 
 About the only information I can gather in regard to 
 this tract is from a letter of Judge B. 0. Pressley to Messrp. 
 Inglesby & Miller (of the Charleston bar) dated Nov. 14th, 
 1892, from which I quote : "'"• 
 
 "The Miles lot is a part of a former tract of Daniel Stewart. 
 He died before 1791 and under primogeniture the land went 
 to his eldest son J. Rosseau Stuart (sic). He gave the Miles 4 
 acres to his sister Mrs. Garner (Ann Mishaw Garner) but 
 never gave her a title. He and she and all the family moved 
 to Alabama 50 or 60 years ago." 
 
 Judge Pressley was, however, in error in stating that Mrs. 
 Garner was a sister of Mr. Stewart, as the family assure me 
 that there was no relationship between them. 
 
 5. POSSIBLE UNKNOWN TRACTS. 
 
 A small part of the Southeastern portion of tha town 
 between the Stewart and the Williman Tracts originally formed 
 part of a larger body of land, embracing the negro settlement 
 back of the Jervey residence and in front of Rugheimer'p, 
 
 granted to ( ) and prior to 1798 owned by William 
 
 Blake. 
 
 Again it is possible that a small part of the Western 
 portion of the Town (though it may be a part of the Daniel 
 Stewart grant) lay between the Wainwright, the Daniel 
 Stewart ft-n^ the WiUiman Tracts ^n4 carqe from some sourcQ 
 
24 SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE 
 
 other than these tracts. The records being deficient the 
 writer has endeavored to find some old muniment of title 
 which would give information in regard to its early history, 
 but has been unsuccessful. 
 
 DIVISIONS OF THE PROVINCE AND STATE IN WHICH THE 
 LANDS NOW IN SUMMERVILLE HAVE BEEN LOCATED. 
 
 Summerville's lands were first in Berkley County, one of the 
 original subdivisions of the Province of Carolina. 
 
 By the Act of 1701, (Stats, at Large Vol. II, p. 236) Berkley 
 County was divided into six parishes (not named), one to be 
 upon Goose Creek and one upon Ashley River. 
 
 In 1706 an Act was passed (Stats, at Large Vol. II, p. 
 282) which provided "that Berkley County shall be divided 
 into six more parishes besides Charlestown, that is to say, 
 one upon Goose Creek, which shall be called by the name of 
 St. James Goose Creek ; one ii[)on Ashley River which shall 
 be called by the name of St. Andrews. By tlie Act of 1708 
 (Id. p. 328) the bounds of th.e parishes are given. 1 have 
 been unable to inspect any plats of this period, and it is 
 impossible from the description in the Act alone, to say with 
 certainty whether the Summerville lands at this time lay iu St. 
 Andrew's or St. James Goose Creek, it was probably the 
 former. 
 
 The copy of Herman Moll's Map dated 1715, in the 
 Appendix to the Year Book of the City of Charleston for the 
 year 1886, shows the parishes of St. James Goose Creek, St. 
 Andrews and St. George, and the church in the last named 
 Parish, and according to this Map Summerville lands lay 
 wholly in the Parisii of St. George. This Parish was not 
 established, however, until 1717 (two years after the date of 
 the said Map), when a new Parish was cut off from the 
 upper part of St. Andrews Parish and named St. George's 
 (Stats, at Large Vol. Ill, p. 9). Again it is impossible to say 
 without access to the plats, whether Summerville lands lay 
 in the Parish of St. George's or in St. James Goose Creek. 
 
SKETCH OF 8UMMERVILLK 
 
 25 
 
 They may have been in both. 
 
 For many years there were disputes, as to the proper lines 
 between the Parishes of St. Andrews, St. James Goose Creek 
 and St. George, and the lines were changed and re-established 
 several times. (Vid. Stats, at Large Vol. Ill, p. 134 (1721) : 
 Vol. V, p. 56 (1788), Id. p. 366 (1799); Id. p. 599 (1809); 
 Id. p. 645 (1811); Vol. VI, p. 35(1816) according to plat of 
 John Wilson; Vol. IX, p. 313 (1788); Id. p. 432 (1808). 
 
 The Act of 1809 Vol. V, p. 599, above referred to and 
 ■ome of the later Acts, fix the boundary line in this locality 
 between the parishes of St. James Goose Creek and St. 
 George's Dorchester, as running from the lower line of the 
 Parish of St. George and the upper line of St. Andrews where 
 it intersects with the line of St. James Goose Creek a direct 
 Northwest course until it strikes Four Hole Swamp. This is 
 said to be the same line (N. 49« W) which running 
 through the town subsequently divided Colleton and Charles- 
 ton Counties, of which hereafter. 
 
 The original Counties into which the Province was divided 
 seem to have been abolished and the State subsequently but 
 prior to 1780, divided into Districts, and Summerville lands 
 lay in Charleston District. The Act of 1783 (Stats, at Large, 
 Vol. IV, p. 561) provided for the Division of Charleston 
 District into Counties, and Commissioners were appointed for 
 this purpose. They evidently performed this duty and 
 reported, for in 1785 (Stats, at Large Vol. IV, p. 663) 
 Charleston District was divided into six Counties, of which 
 "Berkley County" was one and Summerville's lands lay 
 therein. This County, however, was not similar to the 
 original Berkley County, and had no connection whatever 
 with the present County of this name, which was not 
 established until 1882. 
 
 These subdivisions of the Districts into Counties were for 
 the purpose of establishing County Courts for the convenience 
 of the citizens, but the experiment seems not to have boon 
 successful, for the Counties were abolished, and the Court 
 Houses and Jails therein directed to be sold (vid. Stats, at 
 Large 1803 Vol. V, p. 466.) 
 
26 SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE 
 
 By the Act of 1798, VII Stats, p. 284, Colleton District was 
 formed from that part of Charleston which included the 
 Parishes of St. Paul's, St. Bartholomew, and St. George 
 Dorchester. 
 
 The District line between Charleston District and Colleton 
 District ran through the town, as at present located, 
 approximately as fellows : It entered the town South of 
 Seventh South Street, crossing Saw Mill Branch, and ran 
 across the lot of Mr. Skinner on Red Hill, between Sixth 
 and Seventh South Streets, thence by Mrs. William Webb's, 
 through the Cottage formerly of Mrs. Charles Boyle, thence 
 between the present Graded School Building on Laurel Street 
 and the residence of Mr. T. R. Tighe — a blazed pine near a 
 si)ring on the school lot being on the line — thence through the 
 old Post Office lot which was opposite to Mr. Daniel Miler's 
 residence, and through Mrs. Manigault's lot; thence a little to 
 the Southwest of nnd skirting the Street (Bluminburg) now 
 running between the residence of Mrs. Wayland and that of 
 Miss Walker on one side and Mrs. Stello's and the old Witte 
 place now Legare Walker on tlie other, and leaves the town at 
 or near Mr. Parson's gate at the head of this Street. 
 
 The portion of the town to the Northeast of this line 
 lay in Charleston District, and that to the Southweat in 
 Colleton. 
 
 By Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution of 1868, the 
 Districts were changed to Counties, with the same boundaries 
 (except Pickens County.) 
 
 By the General Statutes (1882) Sec. 414, the line between 
 the two Counties (Charleston and Colleton) is thus described : 
 "From Windsor Hill a straight line (N 49« W) to Four Hole 
 Swamp three-quarters of a mile above Four Hole Bridge near 
 Harley's". The same line is given in Revised Statutes (1893) 
 ^ec. 472. This is the same line whose course through the 
 town has been described above. 
 
 The town remained partly in Charleston County and partly 
 in Colleton County until the formation of Berkeley County in 
 1882, when such portion thereof as was in Charleston County 
 passed into Berkeley County. (Vid. Acts 1882, Vol. XVH. 
 
SKETCH OF SUMMERVILLE 27 
 
 p. 682, also Acts of 1898, Vol. XXI, p. 501; Acts of 1896, 
 Vol. XXII, p. 309; Genl. Stats., 8eo. 409; and Rev. Stats., 
 Sec. 467.) 
 
 The town thus remained partly in Colleton and partly in 
 Berkeley County (the same line marking the division) until 
 the formation of Dorchester County in 189/ (Acts of 1897, Vol. 
 XXII, p. 595.) 
 
 By this Act Dorchester Township was taken from C(dleton 
 County and the following portion of Berkeley County was also 
 taken: "From the intersection of the County line between 
 Colleton and Berkeley Counties with the run of Four Hole 
 Creek a straight line to a point upon Saw Mill Branch one 
 mile Northeast of the South Carolina and Georgia Railroad, 
 thence along said branch to the Colleton County line, and 
 thence back to the starting point along the line of division 
 between Colleton and Berkeley Counties." 
 
 Since the said date (1897) Summerville has been wholly with- 
 in Dorchester County. Its tax division is School District No. 
 18, within which the entire town lies. -, 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS