Certificate of Pension filed the 23^rd day of September
1841 and sent to H. S. Saucey(?) Hartford
Connecticut.

Arrears to the 22 Oct. 1836
5 years 7 mos and 18 days and 1791.17
payable to the children 1791.17

Revolutionary Claim
Act July 4, 1836
Section the

Recorded by Theodore L. Moody clerk
Book 6 Vol 23(?) Page 84

The aforesaid amount is
payable to the children of the said deceased viz. Ralph Wells,
Hiram Wells, Bazze Wells,
Ruth Hancock, Russell Wells,
and Calvin Wells

Hon. Eil(?) Chamberlain
?? ?? May 8/55
?? ?? May 21/55

State of Connecticut

On this Sixteenth day of August in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty one personally appeared before the Court of Probate for the District of Hartford Ralph Wells aged sisty six years who being first duly sworn according to the law doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefits of the provision of the Act of Congress passed July 4, 1836.

That he is the son of Bazze Wells who was an officer in the War of the Revolution. That his father the sd Bazze first enlisted into Capt. John Sedgewock's company, Col'n Benjamin Hinman's Reg't May 16^th 1775 and served that period of service as a Searg't. On January 23^rd 1776 he received a commission as Ensign in Capt. John Steven's company Col'n Burall's Battalion and July 24^th following he received a commission from Col'n Benedict Arnold as Lieut. of Marines to serve on the Lakes and in January first 1777 he received a commission by the Continental Congress of Lieut. in Captain Jesse Kimball's Company of Col'n John Chandler's Battalion where he continued to serve until overtaken with sickness which obliged him to resign. It appears by (reading of?) Journal that he kept while in service which he left in my possession that his last period of service ?? ??

He further declares and says that his father the said Bazze in the year 1792 or 3 petitioned to Congress to get some compensation for sickness attending him for a long period of time after he left the Service and which sickness and infirmity continued upon him until his death in 1814, but Congress of that time did not see fit to grant him any compensation.

He further declares and says that the following are the only living children of Bazze and Ruth Wells deceased. viz. Ralph and Hiram Wells now living in Hartford. Bazze Wells and Ruth Hancock the widow of Ariel Hancock residing in the State of Ohio. Russell and Calvin Wells residing in Springfield Massachusetts.

One thousand seven hundred and sixty nine February ninth. Then Bayze, son of John Wells of Farmington was married to Ruth Gaylord of Hartford.
1769 February 9^th
One thousand eight hundred and fourteen. October twenty fourth. Died Bayze Wells aged seventy one years - gout and infirmity.
1814 October 22^nd aged 71 years
One thousand eight hundred and thirty six October twenty second. Died Ruth Wells aged eighty six years. Old Age
1836 October 22^nd aged 86 years

I certify that the above is a true and exact copy from the records of the Church in West Hartford (in the town of Hartford) formerly kept by Rev'd Nathan Perkins D.D. dec'd formerly clergyman of the 2^nd Society with the exception of the date which is inscribed(?) on the record in fair legible figures as follows 1769 Feb 29^th 1814 Oct. 22^nd 1836 Oct. 22^nd
Jos. E. Cone

I, Joseph E. Cone of the town and County of Hartford and State of Connecticut of lawful age do on oath testify and say that I have in my possession the Church Records fo the Society of West Hartford and have carefully examined the same and that the above is a true abstract from 2^nd records with the exception of the above ?? as certified by me.

Jos. E. Cone

Little Falls NY April 27, 1855

to the Hon.
The Commissioner of Pensions
By a letter from the commissioner of Pensions or from a clerk in the office L.P. ?????? a copy of which has been ??? it appears that on the 23 Sept 1841 a certificate of Pension was paid in the name of Ruth Wells dec'd widow of Baise Wells of Connecticut for $300.21 a year commencing on 7 March 1831 ending 22 Oct 1836 when she died. That it was made payable to Ralph Wells and 5 others as her only surviving children and was sent to the ?? of Hon J. Saucey(?) of Hartford Con.

Although these were her only surviving children of Ruth Wells at the time of her death she left grandchildren. The children of her son Asahel Wells. In their behalf this application is made. They seem to have been excluded.

By the Act of June 19, 1840 it is provided that in case any pensioner who is a widow shall die leaving children the amount of pension due at her death will be paid to the executor or administrator for the benefit of her children as directed in the foregoing section "In case of the death of any pensioner whether male or female leaving children the amount of pension may be paid to any one or each of them as they may prefer without the intervention of an administrator." On looking over the pension laws I have been led to infre that it was under this act that the pension was paid to the surviving children to the exclusion of the deceased Asahel Wells - If I am right in this inference it appears to me the act was not correctly construed or rather that it had no application to the case. The act was passed after the death of the widow who had become entitled to the pension and it was part of her estate at the time of her death as such under the laws of distribution of the State of Connecticut her grandchildren will become vested with an interest in her estate and the amount due her for her pension and the law of Congress passed afterwards would not divest them had she died after the Acts of 1849 her estate so far as the pension was concerned would have been subject to that act.

I respectfully request that you will give me such information on the subject as will enable me to see that the children of Asahel Wells have justice done them in the case. The widow was the widow of an officer in the revolutionary war by referring me to acts under which the pension was granted and that under it was paid to the surviving children - and under the Act of 1840 by Receiving(?) the construction given to it on other ??? so as to meet the case on it ????.