Matches 151 to 200 of 9,825
|| Linked to
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Clement Buxton died at Stamford on 2 August 1657, one of those Stamford citizens to succumb to the general illness at that time now thought to have been malaria. His parents, and place and date of birth are completely unknown.|
His wife's name was Eunice (?) (also spelled Unica or Uneca or even Unity in the records). After Clement's death, she married (2) at Stamford on 22 July 1658 Peter Brown, whose wife Elizabeth had also died in the summer of 1657 (21 September), probably another malaria victim. Peter Brown died on 22 August 1658, less than a month after this marriage, and "Unica Brown" then married (3) at Stamford on 9 March 1659, Nicholas Knapp. She appears to have died at Stamford in early April 1670. The will of Nicholas Knapp, made on 15 April 1670, probably shortly after her death, after providing for his own natural children, included the following provision for Eunice's daughters: "I give to my two daughters in law (i.e. stepdaughters) Viz: Sarah and Unice Buxton all their others clothes as a free gift: except one hat and one new petticoat which my will is that they should have owned of their portions: also I will and bequeath unto Unice Buxton the new bible as a free gift (also) My will is that the portions due to my two daughters in law, viz: Sarah Buxton and Uneca Boxton out of the estate of their father Clement Buxton I say that their portions be currently payd according to their proportion of that inventorie."
The lands of Clement "Buckston" were recorded in Stamford on 15 March 1650 (probably 1650/51) as part of the general inventory of real estate being made at that general time....
By the time of the 1701 tax assessment he had accumulated a real estate valuation of 112 pounds that was among the more substantial holdings in the town.
His inventory was taken on 3 September 1657 by Richard Law and John Holly, and contained 4 bibles and other books in addition to the usual real estate, livestock and household items, probably indicating that he was a literate man. the same inventory also demonstrated that he had shoe-making equipment, and also clothes made of leather. Jeanne Majdalany studied this inventory in detail as well as those of several others that were recorded in the Town Records, and made the interesting observation that he was, "the only man listed as having a desk and also a wheelbarrow."
|BUXTON, Clement (I09564)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Daniel Scofield was in Stamford by December 1641, when his name appeared on a list to be granted a 2-acre homelot with 3 acres of woodland. His name did not appear among the lists of persons who migrated to Stamford with the Rev. Richard Denton fro Wethersfield earlier that year, and he had therefore presumably come from some other place. His brother Richard Scofield, a later settler of Stamford (in about 2655), is known to have come from Ipswich, Massachusetts, and it is possible that Daniel had also come from Ipswich, although no records have yet been found for Daniel prior to his appearance in Stamford.|
Genealogist have pieced together several versions of a Scofield family genealogy, but although several competent researchers have tackled parts of the job, no definitive genealogy has yet appeared. the most comprehensive treatment yet for this family has appeared recently in journal "Connecticut Ancestry", in a series of articles by two members of connecticut Ancestry, researched primarily by Blair C. Scofield of Orem, Utah and prepared for publication by Bob Spiers. Although these articles diligently attempt to identify places in the family for all descendants (and particularly to delineate the lines from the two settlers), they have relied heavily upon secondary sources, and have not contributed a substantial amount of original research except for their valiant attempt to resolve discrepancies among existing Scofield materials.
In his 1932 book commonly known as "Washington Ancestry", Charles Arthur Hoppin provided a considerable amount of detail on the career of Richard Scofield (his client's ancestor), but also mentioned Daniel's career in Stamford as well. Hoppin found that the surname had its origin in Lancashire, England, first noted in Rochdale, Lancashire in the 13th Century. Variant spellings include: Schofield ( the spelling used by Hoppin as a preferred spelling), Scholefield, Scholfield, Schofeld, Scholefeld, etc. The sometimes used meaning of "School Field" is discounted by Hoppin as an over-simplification. Although Hoppin stated flatly that the two brothers of Stamford "came from the lancashire Schofields," and provided some English data to confirm that this was likely, he was unable to provide conclusive proof of the actual descent (and, to his credit, did not guess at one either). later writers have continued to claim lines to the Rochdale family, but they are not yet confirmed by any rigorous study of primary records, and must be considered possible, at best. The English line for Daniel Scofeld given by the recent "Connecticut Ancestry" articles, is: DANIEL SCOFIELD (Alexander, Cuthbert, James).
Several other partial genealogies of the family have appeared. "The Scofield Dictionary" and "the Scofields of Northfield, Minnesota," both by Robert LeRoy Scofield, is available on a Connecticut Ancestry Society microfilm. unfortunately, the second half of the Dictionary's alphabetical listings of Scofields has been lost. Nevertheless, this work provided the foundation for much of the later generations in the Blair Scofield compilation.
Another earlier compilation was prepared by Harriet Scofield of the Western reserve Historical Society in Cleveland, and is known as "A Scofield Survey." This compilation was completed for publication in typescript form by Henry Burdette Whipple in 1972, following Miss Scofield's death on 21 June 1970. the compilation is in outline form and, although it was compiled by a responsible genealogist, is unfortunately not documented, at least in its published form. Another (unrelated ) harriet E. Scofield of Minneapolis also prepared an outline version of a limited Scofield Genealogy.
Once again, the work of Paul W. Prindle may be used with confidence regarding the early generations of the Scofield families of Stamford. Prindle gives an especially good treatment of the real estate transactions and land holdings for Daniel Scofield, that will not be repeated here. One of those land transactions, a gift of 10 acres from William Graves, deserves special mention since it may indicate a possible relationship to Graves (perhaps related to Scofield's wife).
The brotherhood of Richard and Daniel Scofield of stamford is proven by a land record in which, "I Rrichard Scofield doe discharge my brother Daniel Scofield of a sertain parsell of the coman fence in the East Field....etc.," dated 11th day, 1st month (March) 1666/67/ It appears that Richard did not arrive in Stamford until about 14 years after Daniel, since the first record there for Richard is the recording of birth of his daughter Elizabeth on 27 November 1655. Clearly, the two brothers had traveled by different schedules, and perhaps different paths as well, prior to their coming together in Stamford. Richard's passage to the New World was well documented in a passenger list, and we therefore know that he was on board the "Susan & Ellen" in 1635. Unfortunately for this present story, Daniel's name did not appear on this same passenger list, and researchers have been unable to determine his time of immigration. Hoppin claims that Daniel Scofield was in Massachusetts "for a brief period of months," and later in Wethersfield for three years before going to Stamford, but none of this is supported with documentation and appears to be a fabrication. To repeat, we simply do not have any records of Daniel Scofield prior to his arrival in Stamford in 1641.
Scofield and Spiers give Daniel Scofield's birth as "abt. 1616," but without specific reference. Hoppin said that he was "between 50 and 60 years of age" when he died (before 10 February 1669/70), which would give a birth year range of about 1610-1620. Other researchers has come up with a birth year of 1595 for Daniel Scofield, apparently based on earlier work by william A.D. Eardeley. No marriage date has been found, and only his last child's birth was recorded in Stamford in 1657, so no good reasons for speculation on a birth year are found in these areas. About all we can say is that he was probably an adult (21 years of age or greater) in 1641 when he received his land distribution at Stamford, and was therefore born before about 1620, probably in England......
The will of Daniel Scofield was made at Stamford 1 September 1669 and witnessed by George Slason and John Holly. He designated his wife to be executrix (no name stated) along with his tow sons Daniel and John, executors, and gave legacies to his daughter Sarah and her tow minor children, and to "my other four children" (that is, to Daniel, John Joseph and Mercy) the three sons to have the house and homelot (subject to the widow's thirds) and the residue of the estate equally except for the son Daniel who was to have "ten pounds over plus." He died sometime during the following winter, since his inventory was taken on 10 February 1669/70 (10th day 12th month 1669) by Lt. Francis Bell and John Holly. The will was signed with a mark, as was an earlier deed given to john Mead on 20 February 659/60, indicating that Daniel Scofield was unable to sign his own name and was probably not an educated person.
|SCOFIELD, Daniel (I48601)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Daniel Smith had the second highest real estate valuation on the Stamford Grand List of January, 1701, being a total of 148 pounds, second only to Jonas Weed Sr. This was several years after his father's death, and much of his estate probably came from being Henry Smith's eldest son. Some of his family relationships appear in the land records: his son Moses in 1730; his son Ezra of Greenwich in 1730; his sons Jabez deceased, Joseph and Caleb; and his grandsons Jabez, Joshua and Josiah (sons of the first Jabez), all in 1733.|
He also held land in Greenwich over the period from before 1713 until at least the 1720's. He gave rights in Greenwich to his son Daniel in 1706, to his son nathan in 1722, and a parcel of land in Greenwich to his son Benjamin, also in 1722.
In the distribution of his estate at Stamford in 1740, his living children were named as: Benjamin, Ezra, Moses, Joseph, Daniel, Caleb, Nathan, Ruth, wife of James June, Hannah (husband not named), the wife of Daniel Lockwood Jr. (unnamed), and Sarah (husband not named). In addition, reference was made to the children of a deceased son, Jabez.
|SMITH, Daniel (I53258)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": David COULD have been many years older than Rachel, and quite advanced in years when their children were born, but I can find no other David of an appropriate age to account for this marriage, and must place him here not having any other alternative. the fact that his father specifically gave him land in 1711 does not prevent his being a very young person at the time. It does not appear that he had an earlier marriage, at least not one resulting in any surviving children. His will, made on 30 Oct 1769 and proved 1 Jan 1788, mentioned his wife Rachel, and only those children known to be Rachel's namely David, Nehemiah, Israel, Nathaniel, Rachel and "Asona". ||SMITH, David (I53263)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Fortunately, Edward Franklin Weed was able to obtain information directly from members of this branch of the Weed family. In particular, three letters to E.F. Weed from Alanson Lockwood Weed Sr. have survived, relating some of his direct knowledge of his father's career.|
Based on these letters and the E.F. Weed Notebook entries derived from them, we fid that William Weed and his brother Ira went together to Illinois in the 1830's. While in Illinois, William married (1) Margaret Winfield on 13 June 1839, and they had a single child, Alanson Lockwood Weed (Sr.) Margaret was the daughter of Silas and Nellie (?) Winfield, born 21 December 1819, and died 24 May 1842. She died when Alanson was an infant, and the father went back East, leaving the child in the care of others in Illinois, where he grew up not knowing either of his parents. Alanson Weed said that his father returned to "New York", but he has not been clearly identified in any New York City Directories during this time period.
William married (2) on 20 December 1843 (place not yet evident) Lydia Jansen, daughter of Clyman Jansen, born on 17 Nov. 1812, and died 23 oct 1889. They were living in Darien at the time of the 1880 Census, where her place of birth, that of both of her parents, and of their daughter Margaret are all given as
All information in the following list of children is fro the E.F. Weed Notebook and is considered to be reliably based on direct information from descendants of the family.
|WEED, William (I68822)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Francis Holmes is another early resident of Stamford for whom English origins have not yet been identified. He died at Stamford in the winter of 1675/76.|
The name of his first wife and mother of his children is completely unknown. He married (2), sometime after 19 August 1658, Ann (?) Stevens, widow of Thomas Stevens who died on that date in Stamford. Her maiden name is also unknown. On 20 December 1686, the brothers Obadiah, Benjamin and Joseph Stevens agreed that their mother, "the widow Homs," would live with her son Benjamin Stevens, with some support being provided by the other two brothers in the form of certain specified gifts of animals. And, on 1 April 1689, Ann holmes, widow, signing with her X mark, gave "asartain ox" to her son Joseph stevens. Francis Holmes had died at Stamford before 14 February 1675/76 when his inventory was taken.
He first appeared in the Stamford records in 1648 when he and a night watchman were both verbally abused by robert Pennoyer, who was "overcom wt. wine." Francis Holmes himself was accused for misconduct years later (1665) in another Stamford incident, and his son Richard was similarly charged in 1684.
According to Paul Prindle, Francis Holmes was a blacksmith, and always signed with his mark, indicating that he could probably neither read nor write.
His will was made at Stamford on 6 September 1671 and proved at Fairfield on 14 March 1675/76. His wife (unnamed) was to receive the house for life or until "Change of Condition by marriage;" his son John receive the shop with tools, iron, and steel; his son Stephen to receive the farm, horses, and farm implements; and both sons to share equally in the cattle and the remainder. His son Richard, daughter Ann Dean, and servant Cornelius were each to receive 5 shillings. He also referred to his son John's oldest son (not named) who was to receive "my short gunn." He signed with his "FH" mark, in the presence of witnesses Henry Smith, Ann Smith, and Matthew Bellamy. His inventory was presented on 14 March 1675/76, and verified by his widow on the same date. The small legacy to his son Richard suggest that he may have set Richard up in business as a blacksmith during his lifetime, possibly in Norwalk, and therefore considered that Richard had already received his portion.
|HOLMES, Francis (I29375)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": He did not live long enough to enjoy the liberal benefits of the 1832 Pension Act, as did three of his brothers. His widow, however, applied for a pension on 25 July 1837 and it was granted, based upon the service of her first husband, Robert Stogdill. Stogdill's entry in "Stamford"s Soldiers" mentions that she later married Gould Smith. ||SMITH, Gold (I68925)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": He had children Thomas, Jeremiah, Daniel (b.1728), Hannah, Rebecca and Stephen recorded at Stamford. The will of Thomas Newman was made on 18 Mar 1743 and probated 7 Feb 1744, mentioning his wife Hannah and four sons and two daughters, but without names. Jonathan Newman, Timothy White and Benjamin Strong were witnesses. The inventory was taken on 2 April 1744 by Jonathan Newman and Stephen White. His widow Hannah married (2) 6 Feb 1746/47 Joseph Bishop. Thomas Newman's estate was distributed to his sons Stephen and Daniel on 16 Mar 1752, their mother Hannah Newman having married Joseph Bishop. ||NEWMAN, Thomas (I41243)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": He was quite active in town affairs, serving various terms in the elected positions of fence viewer, pounder, surveyor of highways, lister, and collector. ||BUXTON, Clement (I09562)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": He was the youngest of four brothers in this family to serve in the Revolution. Except for a time in New York State at Greenville in Green County (where his pension application was first granted), he resided in the Stamford area, at New Canaan at least from 1820 until the time of his death.... ||SMITH, Isaac (I68939)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Henry Smith was among the first group of settlers that came from Wethersfield to Stamford in 1641. It has been claimed that he was the "son of Thomas Smith of st.Mary Adermanbury England," adn was born in 1619 but this origin is not yet considered proven. "The History of Ancient Wethersfield" claims that he was the son of a Samuel Smith, but without further explanation. Robert Louer (author "The Smith Families of Stamford, Connecticut") has described these and other theories of the Henry Smith origin in more detail that will not be repeated here. Henry Smith died at Stamford, probably shortly after he made his will there on 4 July 1687.|
The name of his first wife ha been given as Hannah ?, but not proven, perhaps an assumption based on the name of their oldest daughter. Sometime after the death of Francis Andrews at Fairfield 1662, he married (2) Ann/Anna (?) Andrews, widow of Francis Andrews. On 21 January 1664, Henry Smith confirmed a prenuptial agreement with his wife that discussed legacies in he former husband's will to three of her youngest children, Rebecca, Ruth and Abraham. She actually had a total of 10 children with her first husband, namely Hanna, Elizabeth,John, Thomas, Mary, Ether, Rebecca, Jeremiah, Abraham and Ruth. Ann's death was recorded at Stamford "the second week of June 1685".
"The lands of Henery Smith" in Stamford were entered in the town records on 26 March 1650, and included a houe and home lot of 1 1/2 acres bounded by Edward Jessup (N), common land (S), a highway (W), and the lands of Jeffrey Ferris and Thomas Hyatt on the East (E). Other lands recorded at the time were 5 acres + 3 acres of upland in the North Field, and 3 acres of meadow in the South Field. At a later time, 3 additional acres of upland in the North Field wrwe recorded on this same page of the town records as having been purchased from Edmund Lockwood in 1653.
The General Court (Assembly) of Connecticut granted Henry Smith 80 acres of land on 11 May 1671 "upon the acco' of his seruice at the Pequit warre." The town of residence was not noted, but we assume this was our Henry Smith of Stamford.
The will of "Hennery Smith" (who made his H mark in a feeble hand) was dated 4 July 1687 and witnessed by Joseph Garnsey and Abraham Ambler at Stamford. His son John Smith and his grandson John Knapp jointly received "my house and housing and home lott," to be equally divided. His grandson John Knapp was to pay all just debts and funeral charges. "All the other of my estate" was given to his daughter Hannah Lawrence, "expecting ye other of my children to be satisfied with what they have already received: my estate being so small."
|SMITH, Henry (I53360)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": In a few records, notably in 1714 at the time he and his wife Elizabeth were parties to the agreement regarding her father's estate, he was known as Daniel Weed Junior to distinguish him from the other contemporary Daniel Weed in Stamford at the time. soon afterward, however, the number of Daniels Weeds in town doubled to 4 heads of families, and the nomenclature problem became more difficult. In later years this present Daniel Weed was sometimes identified with his militia officer's title in the Stamford records and sometimes not, causing some confusion in interpretation of those records for us today. Paul Prindle noted that there were several Daniel Weeds in the Stamford records and admitted with understatement that, "It is sometimes difficult to distinguish one Daniel from another in the public records," so that whenever Lt. Daniel WAS identified with his militia title, it gave us a benchmark with which to place the other contemporary Daniels in their proper positions.|
In one interesting case, the Stamford assessors chose to eliminate numerical titles altogether and named the four different Daniel Weeds on their 1738 tax list simply (and very effectively ) as "Lef Dan Weed", "Dan Weed Lef son," "Dan Weed," and "Dan Weed Dan son."
Part of the confusion with titles is due to the fact that Daniel's military offices were not held until rather late in his life. His commission as ensign of the Stamford 1st Militia company or trainband was created by the Connecticut General Assembly in October 1733 when Daniel was already 48 years old. Four years later on 13 October 1737, he received his commission as lieutenant of the same Stamford Company from the General Assembly, and this important title was used more frequently thereafter in the Stamford records.
Once again, the reader is referred to Paul Prindle's Gillespie book for a reliable and fairly thorough account of Lt. Daniel's career, but with the caution that some errors in the Prindle account of this family have been discovered as noted below.
Lt. Daniel's real estate transactions, many of which shed important light on his family relationships, were not detailed in Prindle's treatment. Whenever he chose not to use the military title in his transaction, care must be taken to be sure of the identity of the "Daniel Weed" that was meant......
The will of Daniel Weed of Stamford was made on 11 Sept 1762, witnessed by Abraham Davenport, Anne Belding and "Elizabeth Davenport Jr.," and proved 5 August 1766. His inventory was taken by Abraham Hait (Hoyt) and Benjamin Weed on 24 September 1766. A distribution was made and accepted by the Court on 16 March 1767 in which his lands were distributed subject to the widow's right of dower to his daughter Elizabeth Seeley, 8 acres plus 2 roods; daughter Deborah Scofield, 4 acres plus 3 roods; a grandson Silvanus Haity, 3 acres plus 2 roods and 12 Rods; and the remainder according to a complicated formula equally divided into four units, 3 to the surviving sons Daniel, Hezekiah and nehemiah Weed, and the fourth to four grandchildren, all sons of Reuben Weed, deceased, namely Reuben (Jr.), John, Eliphalet and Elnathan Weed.
On 8 May 1767, the "Legatees of our Honoured Father and Grandfather Lieut. Daniel Weed Late of Stamford," being Daniel Weed Jr. and Hezekiah Weed (sons) and Reunen Weed, John Weed Jr. and Eliphalet Weed (grandsons) quit claimed land at Strawberry Hill to (their brother and uncle) Nehemiah Weed. Zephaniah Weed, son of Daniel "Jr." witnessed his father's signature on this document.
|WEED, Lieut. Daniel (I59900)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": In addition to the information on his military service in "Stamford's Soldiers" pp. 265-66, his Pension Application file states that he was wounded at the Battle of Monmouth and as a result had already been on the invalid pension list for several years before 1820..... ||SMITH, Peter (I68932)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Jacob Brush, weaver, was born probably at Huntington before1667. He appears to have died sometime after 23 June 1724 when Henry Lloyd sold a canoe to him and his son, and before 30 April 1728 when the Huntington records referred to "the right formerly held by Jacob Brush, late deceased." As noted below, he may have died closer to the earlier date.|
His wife has been identified through the Huntington land records as Mary Rogers, daughter of Jonathan Rogers and Rebecca Wickes. On 27 January 1701/02, in what appears to have been a wedding present, Jonathan Rogers Senior gave her several pieces of land in Huntington for "ye natrall Love & afection which I have & Doe beare unto my well beloved Dafter Mary Rogers." One of the pieces so conveyed was "Seventeen Acars of wood land to be taken up by ye sd Mary Rogers or hur husband Jacob Brush upon my Right in ye next division Made by or stated by ye towne" . The other parcels were identified as 3 acres on the east side of Cold Spring Harbor and "also a third part of my Medow in ye east neck." her father then went on to call her "Mary Rogers orBrush" two additional times later in the same deed. She was no longer called Mary Rogers when, on 24 October 1702, Jacob Brush and Mary his wife sold land in the little East Neck fields "which I the said Jacob had of my father (clearly meaning his wife's father) Jonathan Rogers senior" to Obadiah Rogers of Huntington, Mary's brother.
They apparently needed to move to larger quarters in Huntington as their young family came along since on 24 February 1703/04, Jacob Brush with the "approbation and consent of Mary his wife," sold his homestead for an unspecified amount to Jeremiah Wood of Huntington including, "my hous orchard hom lott fences yards gardens belonging to ye same siteuate Lying & beeing In ye Town of Huntington Contayning by Estimation Six Acars by it More or Less being bounded on ye north by ye Lott of Jonathan Scuder(,) on ye South by ye highway Leading to Oyester Bay(,) on ye East by ye streeet Leading to Hors Neck (,) on ye west by an old hedg formerly mad by ye sd Jacob Brush which Standeth by ye path yt Leadeth to wigwam Swamp."
Mary (Rogers) Brush married (2) at Stamford on "the evening following last day of February 1733/34" Lieutenant Jonathan Bell, one of Stamford's leading citizens. Jonathan Bell had been born at Stamford 14 February 1663 and died there in September 1745. He was married twice previously, first to one Grace Kitchell of New Jersey, and second on 14 Jan 1701/02 to Deborah Ferris, having a total of 7 children with these fist two wives. Deborah (Ferris) Bell had died at Stamford on 30 July 1724. Lt. Jonathan Bell was 70 years old at the tine of his third marriage.
The will of Mrs. mary Bell of Stamford, widow of Lt. Jonathan Bell, was signed (with her t mark) on 23 September 1745 (probably shortly after her husband's death, and certainly shortly after he death of her daughter rebecca) and proved 5 November 1745, naming her children Jonathan Brush; Ruth wife of Nathan Brown; Ann, wife of Nathaniel Brown; Keziah, wife of Daniel Weed, and grandchildren Jacob Brush son of Jonathan Brush; and the children of Rebecca Slason, a deceased daughter.
Considering that all of her children married into Stamford families, and that some of the marriages were as early as 1725, it is possible that the widow Mary Rogers may have moved to Stamford quite a bit earlier than her marriage to Lt. Bell would indicate. A date of death fo Jacob Brush might therefore have been as early as 1724, when we seem to have the last known record of him still alive. At this time, many of his children had just reached or were reaching marrying age.
|BRUSH, Jacob (I08652)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Jeffrey Ferris was born in England say about 1610, and died at Stamford, Fairfield County, Connecticut probably about November 1666. Various reports circulate on the internet giving his birthplace in England in an assortment of places usually Leicestershire, and some of these give his father as one Richard Ferris, born in 1585. None of these reports has been confirmed or substantiated for this present compilation....|
He was married (at least) three ties, but none of the marriages seem to have been recorded in Connecticut records. The death of his first (?) wife, probably the mother of all of his children, was recorded at Stamford, but her name has not yet been determined. She died at Greenwich on the 31st day, 5th month(July) 1658, during the time of the epidemic of what is thought to have been malaria that claimed so many Stamford lives in that time period. the Stamford record of her death is partially lost because the original page is deteriorated, but Donald L. Jacobus transcribed the entry in 1933 as "( )ne wife of Jeffrey Ferris." No further identification or explanation has been found.
The Rev. Elijah Baldwin Huntington, Stamford's first historian, while not naming Jeffrey's first wife, reported a tradition regarding her that may or may not eventually be confirmed by future researchers:
"Tradition invests the emigration of this (Jeffrey Ferris) family to this country with the hues of romantic adventure - the ancestress, high born, following her plebian lover out into this western world, to share with him here the fortunes which English aristocracy would not allow there."
Jeffrey married second, possibly in December 1658, Mrs. Susannah (Norman) Lockwood, born say 1615, the daughter of richard Norman of Salem, Massachusetts, and widow of Robert Lockwood who died in Fairfield before 11 September 1658 when his inventory was taken. Robert Lockwood was at Watertown during the period 1634-1646, and the couple must have been acquainted at that time and place. She had 11 children from her first marriage, 10 of whom were living in 1658, and many of them were young enough to move to Stamford with her when she married Ferris. Susannah (Norman) (Lockwood) Ferris died at Greenwich on 23 December 1660.
Jeffrey Ferris' third wife was Judith (Feake) Palmer, daughter of James Feake and widow of Lieutenant William Palmer. She had four young boys with her when she joined Jeffrey's household. His will set aside ten pounds apiece "to her four children that is to say this four boyes which I brought up and kept." After Jeffrey's death in 1666, she married as her third husband, John Bowers, and used his name in 1667 when receipting for her share in the settlement of Jeffrey's estate.
He was in America by 6 May 1635 when he was made a freeman of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, presumable a resident of Watertown at the time. he joined with other Watertown residents in their establishment of Wethersfield, Connecticut, probably later in that same year of 1635. He recorded his homestead in the Wethersfield land records on 26 April 1641, prior to selling a portion to William Comstock in that same year. he continued to hold land in Wethersfield until 1645, when he disposed of the remainder of his property there to John Deming. An early Glastonbury historian found by analyzing the Wethersfield Land Records that Jeffrey Ferris owned land in the eastern portion of Wethersfield at Naubuc Farms, on the east side of the Connecticut River at what is now Glastonbury.
In 1640-1641 he joined with those other members of the Watertown/Wethersfield party who went on to become the founders and settlers of Stamford, and his name appears on most of the surviving lists of the earliest Stamford residents. He then purchased land in greenwich from William Hallett and moved there about 1650. His connections with both Stamford and Greenwich constituted almost a dal citizenship, considering the different jurisdictions that controlled these two towns during their infancy.....
According to historian Jeanne Majdalany, Jeffrey Ferris was the operator of Stamford's town mill in the early years, and his sons were probably a great help in this endeavor.
Paul Prindle transcrived the will of Jeffrey Ferris in full for his book, "Gillespie Ancestors". The following excerpts provide us with information on his children and grandchildren that cannot be found anywhere else: "my sonn James Fferris...my sonn Jonothan Lockwood...my daughter Mary Lockwood...her husband Jonothan Lockwood...my son Peter Fferris his three children...my sonn Joseps two children...
|FERRIS, Jeffrey (I21928)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": John Conklin was born in England, probably in Nottinghamshire and probably before 1605, and died at Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York on 23 February 1683/84. the most common present spelling of his surname is used herein, except where a specific record is being cited, in which cases the actual spelling at the time is shown. Conklin Mann studied the glassmakers of England from the standpoint of trying to determine the origin of the surname and eventually concluded, "My guess is that Conckelyne or Concklyne is an English corruption of a Continental name; that Ananias and John Conckelyne were of the second generation in England; that their forebears came from Italy, Lorraine or Normandy, perhaps by way of Antwerp".|
A submission to the pedigree Resource File of the Family History Library claims that he was born about 1600 in St. Peter's Parish, Nottingham, son of William Conklyne and Ruth Hedges, but this has not been confirmed with independent investigation.
He married Elizabeth (?Mylner) Alseabrook on 24 January 1624/25 at St. Peter's Church, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. His presumed brother Ananias Conklin, with whom he was associated at several locations in America, was also married at this same church in Nottingham to Mary Launder six years later on 23 February 1630/31. Elizabeth died at Southold, Long Island on or before 26 mar 1671. Close associations both in Salem, Massachusetts and on Long Island suggest that she or her husband may have been related to the Scudder family. Rattray reported that John Conklin was married a second time to Mary ?, but no citation was given for this statement and no second marriage was reported by either Conklin Mann or Lawrence H. Conklin in their thorough articles.
Ananias Conklin was granted 10 acres of land by the own of Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, on 25 June 1638, apparently for the purpose of starting a glass works, and he had established a glass making business there before the end of that year. The following year, 1639, Obadiah Holmes and Laurence Southwick joined Ananias in glassmaking. On 14 September 1640 the town received John Conklin as an inhabitant and granted him 5 1/2 acres near the "glass house". The proximity of ages of John and Ananias (as indicated by their marriage times) and their close relationship in Salem and later on Long Island have convinced researchers that they were brothers, although no specific statement of that relationship seems to have survived (at least in the American records). In spite of their apparently valiant efforts, the glass business didn't succeed. On 27 February 1642/43 "Ananias Conklin submitted a petition to the general court asking to be relieved of their obligations and allowed to seek 'a better accommodation of themselves" elsewhere, and the relief was granted.
Based on his extensive study of the career of these brother, Conklin mann has estimated that they left Salem in April 1650, along with Thomas Scudder and possibly others also bound for Long Island. John Conkin was certainly a landholder in Southold before January 1653, when he was mentioned as an adjoining landholder to Robert Ackerly.
Mann cited several documents that recorded charitable acts by John Conklin and concluded that "John Conklin was as generous, kindly man. He became an important but not a leading man in both Southold and Huntington. He remained Goodman Conckelyne through life and such public services as are linked with his name lead to the conclusion that men who knew him had the greatest confidence in his sympathetic understanding and integrity." Goodman "Conclin" and John "Conclin" Junr., both residents of Southold, were made freemen of the Connecticut Colony on 9 October 1662, during Connecticut's brief jurisdiction over that Long Island town.
On 26 March 1671, John Conklin sold his homelot and land in Hashamomuck (part of Southold) to his son Jacob, and although he continued to hold some parcels of land after this time, none of them appear to be residences. Mann's conclusion was that from this time until his death, John Conklin Sr. spent his time in both Southold and in Huntington, living with one or another of his children and their families. Huntington recognized his abilities by appointing him to important committees in 1673 and 1676. When his son-in-law Thomas Brush died at an early age in Huntington in 1675, John Conklin volunteered to be overseer of his young Brush grandchildren, and the Court approved the arrangement when John Conklin and Thomas Brush Jr. presented the inventory of Thomas Brush Sr. on 1 June 1675.
The will of John Conklin of Huntington was signed by mark and not dated, but was presented at the Court at a session of 18, 19 and 20 March 1683/84, at which time the notation was added that the testator had "deceased February ye 23, 1683/84". He mentioned my son John, my son Timothy, my son Jacob, he paying to Mr. Silvester 4 pounds and 10 shillings, Mr. Walter Noaks, my grand child Rebecca Hubert, Mr. Eliphalet Jones (the minister of Huntington), and my daughter Elizabeth Wood, sole executrix. The will was witnessed by John Corey, Samuel Titus and Epenetus Platt. No further probate papers appear to have been filed for this estate, and since only personal property is mentioned in the will, it appears that John Conklin Sr. had been successful in portioning out all of his real estate to his children and grandchildren prior to his death.
|CONKLIN, John (I68913)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": John Knapp must have been quite a capable young man, since he was named co-administrator of the estate of his grandfather Henry Smith in 1687, when John would have been only about 23 years old and apparently not yet even married. This does raise the question, however, about the possibility of an earlier marriage for John Knapp (prior to 1692) that has not yet come to our attention.|
Also, at the time of the death of Thomas Lawrence in the summer of 1691, John Knapp had "the custody of most of the effects of the deceased, and verified the inventory," again signifying a position of considerable trust in the family. Perhaps John Knapp was living with his stepfather Thomas Lawrence even though his mother had died several years earlier in 1685.
He accumulated a considerable amount of property in Stamford over a period of a dozen years from 1703/04 to 1715/16. Interestingly, he continued to hold a total of 12 deeds for these properties without recording, until some event convinced him to record them all in the Stamford Land Records on the last day of January, 1733/34. One of these deeds, dated 2 April 1712, was from Joseph Ferris and Peter Ferris (Jr.) "both sons of Peter Ferris deceased," and therefore his wife's brothers, for 3 acres "whereon standeth ye new dwelling house and barn of sd John Knap."
On 20 May 1730, Capt. John Knapp, Joseph Smith and Caleb Smith all of Stamford made an agreement to divide about 80 acres of land near Lawrences Farm, so called, that they "have a joynt right to ye fee of and ye same hold as Tenants in common." Joseph and Caleb Smith were both sons of Hannah (Smith) Knapp's brother Daniel Smith, and the genealogical significance of this deed is not immediately evident. John Knapp may have received his right in this property directly from the estate of Henry Smith, for which he was administrator.
He was appointed Ensign of the Stamford Trainband in May 1707, Lieutenant in October 1710, and Captain in October 1716, and he was also elected to the respected position of townsman (selectman) of Stamford for a one year term in 1716.
|KNAPP, John (I34156)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": John Reynolds was born in England say about 1610. The date and place of his death are unknown, and there has consequently been considerable speculation about his possible whereabouts during later life. he may have been the brother of Robert Reynolds of Boston, Watertown and Wethersfield.|
A Sarah Reynolds died at Stamford on 31 August 1657 during the epidemic at Stamford thought to have been malaria. This record (alone) has let earlier researchers to claim that she was the wife of John Reynolds, but the original records does NOT give any relationship or age for her, even though the death was recorded on two separate pages. Since there is no other Stamford (or Greenwich) record that identifies this Sarah Reynolds, we must leave open the possibility that she was instead a daughter of John Reynolds, or even an early wife of one of his sons. Caution dictates that we refrain from accepting the earlier assumptions of other writers, including the usually careful Paul Prindle, and say only that the wife of John Reynolds MAY HAVE BEEN the SarahReynolds who died at Stamford in 1657, particularly since there are so few records at Stamford for John Reynolds himself.
A Sarah Reynolds, age 20 years, was on board the ELIZABETH, captained by William Andrews, that left Ipswich, County Suffolk, England for New England on 30 April 1634. Many researchers have speculated that this was the wife of our John Reynolds, who therefore must have come to America himself before that time, or who was on board the same ship but not listed for some reason. It is true that the family of Thurston Raynor and his wife Elizabeth were also on board that ship (along with others bound for Watertown) and the Raynors were also involved in the later migrations to Wethersfield and Stamford, as was John Reynolds.
Regardless of Whether this was indeed Sarah, wife of John Reynolds in the spring of 1634, it does seem probable that John himself had come at about that time since John "Reynolls" was listed next to Jeffrey Ferris on the list of persons taking the oath of freeman of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on 6 May 1635. these two men had very parallel careers at Watertown, Wethersfield, Stamford, and probably Greenwich, and their families intermarried, suggesting a possible relationship reaching back to their origins in England, not yet discovered.
On 14 November 1635, the town of Watertown "Agreed that Daniel Patrick: Brian Pembleton: Richard Bernard: Ephraim Child: Abram Browne: Charles Chaddock: & John Reynolds shall devide to every man his propriety of Meddow, & Upland that is plowable, & the rest to lie common."
The exact time of his arrival in Wethersfield is not known, but Wethersfield historians place it in either 1635 or 1636. On the other hand, Robert Reynolds, possibly his brother, is usually considered to be among the fist settlers of Wethersfield in 1635.
John Reynolds was certainly on the list of Wethersfield residents agreeing to settle at Stamford, and may have gone there early, with the first settlers in 1641 or 1642. However, there are remarkably few records on file for him at Stamford. He had no lands surveyed in 1651 as did so many Stamford citizens, and he was not mentioned as an adjoining landholder in any of the other surveys made at that time except for a single mention of John Holly's homelot as being "bounded by ye lot which was John Renoles". this lack of Stamford references has given rise to several speculations about a later career for John Reynolds, including a possible return to Wethersfield and/or to England, etc. Paul Prindle considered some of these possibilities, and added a few of his own, but without reaching any sure conclusion. At this point, and without further evidence, we must admit that the place, time and circumstances of John Reynolds' death are still unknown. Unquestionably, all three of John Reynolds' (known) children married into Greenwich families.
|REYNOLDS, John (I46238)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": John Slason apparently died intestate, and his estate was administered by his eldest sons John and Jonathan Slason. His inventory was taken at Stamford on 29 November 1706 by Joseph Bishop, Daniel Scofield and Jonathan Bell; and the widow Hannah Slason appeared and verified the inventory on 5 arch 1706/07.|
|SLAWSON, John (I51652)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": John Smith was generous with his sons. On 28 March 1709, he gave to "my loveing & well beloved sonns" Samuel Smith and Ebenezer Smith "all my land and meadow" on both sides of the Mianus River near Lawrences Farm, a total of 36 acres. No record of a similar gift to his eldest son John Junior seems to have survived, but most likely had occurred earlier.|
John Smith Senior distributed the remainder of his property by deeds of gift just prior to his death in 1711. On 13 October 1711, he gave his dwelling house and homelot to "my loveing son nathaniel Smith," along with 3 acres "upon ye tobacco lots," two lots in the South Field of 3 and 2 acres respectively, and "an acre of medow salt & Fresh" in the South Field. From other information, Nathaniel was not yet 20 years old in 1711, and this gift of his father's house and homelot at that age is quite unusual.
Likewise on the same day, he gave "to my loveing son David Smith" three parcels in the North Field of 4, 3 and 3 acres, "all my right of land by ye Mill River," "all my right of medow in ye south field," and "all my right of fresh medow in ye woods". On the 30th of the same month (or perhaps on the same day as the above if thirteenth was changed to thirtieth in the transcription), he gave "to my loveing son Jonathan Smith" 6 1/2 acres in town bounded West by John Smith Junior, all his rights at Pepper Ridge and at the branch of the Mianus Ricer, and an acre of salt meadow in the South Field. All three deeds were witnessed by Joseph Mead and Joseph Ferris, and acknowledged on 1 November 1711, two days before John Smith Senior's death.
Ebenezer and Samuel Smith also received joint distributions from the town of Stamford, based on their father's rights, on 12 November 1711 and 19 April 1717.
The children Samuel, Ebenezer, Nathaniel, Jonathan andDavid are therefore clearly identified as sons in their deeds from their father, as just described. John is proven to be a son by his deed of 26 January 1711/12 (not long after his father's death) to Jonathan Selleck of land and rights which had belonged to "my father John Smith" and "my grandfather Henry Smith," and by a deed from his own son John Smith in 1743 which refers to his father John Smith (John3) and grandfather John Smith(John2). Deaths of the two youngest daughters were recorded in the Town records, two other daughters ere identified fro probate records as described below and there may have been other daughters not yet recognized.
Letters of administration on the estate of John Smith late of Stamford were granted to his son John Smith on 5 December 1711. His inventory was taken on 16 January 1711/12 by Elisha Holly and Daniel Scofield, and Joseph Mead, Joseph Ferris and Ebenezer Smith verified that part of said inventory that was in their possession. the estate was distributed to his children (not named in the record) on 6 February 1711/12 by Capt. Joseph Bishop and Daniel Smith.
Ebenezer Smith (his X mark) and Charles Smith divided several pieces of land by an agreement dated 29 March 1742. It is not clear how Charles Smith obtained the rights to make this agreement but this situation may signify that his father Samuel Smith, a child in this family, had died before that date.
|SMITH, John (I53398)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": John Waterbury was born say about 1614, based upon the marriage of his daughter Rachel in 1659. However, he may also have been the son of William Waterbury of Sudbury baptized 30 December 1621. He died intestate at Stamford, Connecticut 31 July 1658.|
John Waterbury sold his house and 8 acres of land at Watertown, Massachusetts to Robert Pearce/Pierce on 15 October 1646, and presumably moved about that time to Stamford, where he was first of record in 1650.
His wife's name was Rose ?, since it was Rose Waterbury who married Joseph Garnsey at Stamford on 11 My 1659. Many early writers have claimed that she was named Rose Lockwood, and this marriage is often found in the secondary literature. Prindle (Gillespie Ancestry) showed, however, that she could not possibly have been a Lockwood, and that she was instead probably named Rose Taylor, that is, a putative daughter of Gregory Taylor of Watertown and Stamford. He was unable to prove this Taylor connection to his own satisfaction, however, and continued to place a question mark before her surname.....
The connection with the Taylor family, however, is a sure link to this Stamford family's connection with the Massachusetts Bay. Gregory Taylor of Watertown, another passenger of the Winthrop fleet, member of the original Boston Church, and resident of Watertown, also moved from Watertown to Stamford where he died on 24 September 1657. John Waterbury had a claim on the estate of Gregory Taylor at Stamford, as already noted, and our interpretation of this claim is that John Waterbury's mother had become Taylor's wife....
John Waterbury served as Deputy from Stamford to the General Court of the New Haven Colony in 1657 and 1658 (the year of his death). Prindle assigned an age at death of only "37 or 38 years" in 1658, but when Anderson's estimate of his birth year is used (1614) then his age at death is a bit more reasonable (44 years). this may be an additional reason for following Anderson's caution about the identity of the William and John Waterburys of Sudbury.
John Waterbury's widow Rose married Joseph Garnsey/Guernsey at Stamford on 11 May 1659, and had a son, Joseph Garnsey Jr., bon 30 june 1662. Waterbury's estate was not settled by the Probate Court until 1669, at which time Joseph Garnsey was appointed administrator, and Mr. Holly and Lieutenant Bell were appointed overseers of the children "and their disposals and portions." On 14 July 1666 and 19 day 12th month (February) 1668 respectively, Zachariah Dibble for his wife Sarah and John Holmes for his wife Rachel, gave receipts to Joseph Garnsey for their shares in the estate of their wives' deceased father, John Waterbury. On 3 July 1674, John, Jonathan and David Waterbury assigned to their father in law Joseph Garnsey their rights to land in Rocky Neck "which our own father Jno. Waterbury deceased bought of Mr. Law of Stamford & is now in ye possession of Jno. Miller of Stamford..." Then, on 12 February 1684/85, Jonathan and David Waterbury discharged their father in law Joseph Garnsey "forever conserning our portions" of their father's estate, having received their portions in full.
|WATERBURY, John (I59424)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Jonathan Rogers was born at Stratford-on-Avon probably in 1636, and baptized there on 4 September 1636, son of William Rogers. He died sometime after 4 April 1708 when he sold some remaining land in Huntington, but no will or administration or burial records has been found.|
His wife was named Rebecca, and he probably married Rebecca Wickes, daughter of thomas Wickes (or Wilkes) of Stratford-on-Avon, Wethersfield and Huntington, although no marriage record is found. The Wilkes/Wickes and rogers families were both from Stratford-on-Avon, and it would not be unusual for two children in these families to have married each other. Herbert F. Smith (the same person later known as Herbert F. Seversmith whose works has been so helpful for the Rogers and Brush families of Huntington) published a brief article clarifying various Wickes families, in which he demonstrated that Thomas Wickes of Huntington was actually named thomas Wilkes, and that his name had been read incorrectly on many documents. There was another unrelated Thomas Weekes of Oyster Bay,and there has been much confusion related to the sinilarity of names. In describing our Thomas Wilkes or Wickes of Huntington, Seversmith said:
"Wickes, or to give him his proper name, Wilkes, is indicated by investigations now current to have been the son of Edward Wilkes of the suburb of Shottery in Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire, by Katheren Rogers his wife, a relative of William Rogers also of Huntington, New York, and close friend of Thomas Wilkes or Wickes."
Rebecca Wickes' grandmother, therefore was also a member of the Rogers family of Warwickshire. Specifically, Seversmith concluded in his later work that Catherine Rogers was the sister of Thomas Rogers, grandfather of Jonathan Rogers of Huntington, and therefore Jonathan rogers and rebecca Wickes were most likely second cousins.
Jonathan Rogers (along with his brother John Rogers and 19 other Huntington men) was made a freeman of the State of connecticut on 12 May 1664, during Connecticut's brief jurisdiction over that Long Island Town. He held several positions of responsibility in Huntington, including rate gatherer, fence viewer, overseer, and constable. he was a sawyer and at different times a mille of both lumber and grain.
Jonathan rogers "sener" and his wife Rebecca sold several parcels of land including 38 acres of upland bordering on the Huntington Harbor to their son John Rogers on 24 June 1699, reserving a portion to their own life use.
On 12 May 1701 Jonathan and Rebecca Rogers sold their son Obadiah Rogers several parcels of lands and rights reserving, as they had before with John, use of a portion of the lands during their lifetimes.
On 27 january 1701/02, Jonathan Rogers (without Rebecca) gave his daughter Mary Rogers for love and affection and possibly as a wedding present 3 acres on the east side of Cold Spring Harbor and 17 acres of woodland "to be taken up by sd Mary rogars or hur husband Jacob Brush upon my right in ye next division made by or stated by the towne." then, two days later on 29 January 1701/02, Jonathan and Rebecca Rogers sold or gave (the deed can be read both ways) their son Joseph several parcels and rights including 34 acres of upland, again reserving a portion for their lifetime use.
The son David Roges received the major portion of his father's remaining lands on 15 January 1705/06 when Jonathan and Rebecca Rogers sold him "....my house and grist Mil and homestead with all ye buildings that are now upon this d land or hereafter Shall bee in my lifetime & twenty Acars of land this homestead Beeing Sum part of it a small part lying by ye mill pond another part lyig at ye head of ye mill swampe in ye great hollow yt Commeth Down from ye Cuntry Road & Seen Acars joining to it which I bought of Mr Whitehead lying in ye same hollow also another part lying Eastward from my house upon ye hilles between ye ould Mill path & ye Cuntry Road & two Acars of land on ye north side ye road on which my barn now stands & ninteen Acars of land lying in ye west neck on ye east side ye Cove Swampe between ye land of John Ketcham & ye land of John Sammis & fouer Acers not yet laid out & one hundred pound Right of land excepting seventeen Acres and all yt peece of Medow on ye north side ye Road by my house which I bought of Edward Ketcham and halfe my Medow upon Santapague & a third part of my right of land upon ye sd necke together with all & singular ye hereditements & appurtenances thereunto belonging."
Jonathan and Rebecca Rogers were both still living on 4 April 1708 when Jonathan Rogers "Senor...by & with ye Approbation & Consent of Rebeca his wife" sold to Captain Thomas Wickes a 4-acre homelot in Huntington. the deed was witness by Jonathan Rogers Junior, Jeremiah Platt and John Ketcham. Since it appears there were no probate proceedings on his estate, Jonathan Rogers may simply have disposed of all of his real estate during his lifetime, and especially to the benefit of his children.
|ROGERS, Jonathan (I47113)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Jonathan Waterbury was born probably at Stamford about 1651, and died there on 4 or 14 January 1702/03.|
Although his wife is often called "Youne" or "Euni" in the surviving records, her name was Eunice (?) as given in at least one land record, and she also named a daughter Eunice. Most researchers believe that she was Eunice Buxton, daughter of Clement Buxton and his wife, also named Eunice (?). Youne Waterbury married richard Higginbotham at Stamford on 11 December 1707, as his second wife and she died there on 24 May 1710.
the widow "Unice" Waterbury (her X mark) made an agreement with her son Jonathan Waterbury on 26 July 1707, in which she promised to "build and completely finish for her sd son a dwelling hous at Noroton so called fourty foots in length & twenty foots in breadth & ten foots between the Joints...," in return for his assignment to her of certain rights to his father's estate.
After their father's death, two of the sons in this family, Jonathan Waterbury and Joseph Waterbury, witnessed a deed of 9 january 1712/13 in which Clement Buxton Sr. sold land west of the Mill River to joseph Smith. Since the designation "senior" was used this was probably the Clement Buxton who lived from 1647 to 1724, probably their mother's brother.
Many of the children of this family joined as grantors in a deed to Nathan Selleck on 6 January 1724, in which they conveyed a 1 1/2 acre lot in the "Renkon Hooge" (Runkinheage) division that had been their father's Jonathan Waterbury deceased. the grantors were: Jonathan Waterbury, John Newman and Abigail his wife of Stamford, and Benjamin Mead, Moses Ferris and Eunice his wife of Greenwich.
|WATERBURY, Jonathan (I59429)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Joseph Stevens and his brother Benjamin both participated in the development of the new town inland from Stamford that became Bedford in Westchester County, New York. They were both on the list of original proprietors there on 23 December 1680 (the same year as Joseph's marriage). Benjamin actually moved to Bedford and stayed there until about 1685, when he moved further inland and back eastward to another new settlement - this time the one at Danbury, Connecticut, where he remained until his death. Joseph was not involved with this second migration to Danbury and in fact probably did not even leave Stamford for Bedford in the first place. On 2 May 1683, the Town of bedford disallowed the sale of his land there, and his rights were assigned to John Slason instead.|
On 24 December 1714, Joseph Stephens Senior of Stamford gave for fatherly affection to his well beloved son Joseph Stevens, all his real estate in Stamford, including a house and lot of 1 acre, 3 acres in the North Field, and 2 1/2 acres in the South Field. The younger Joseph later sold the "home lott that was my father's" to an adjoining owner, Ebenezer Weed on 4 March 1717, shortly before his father's death.
|STEVENS, Joseph (I55165)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Mercy Tuttle was the second ax murderer in this family, murdering her son Samuel Brown Jr. at Wallingford on 23 Jun 1691 when she was almost 41 years old and her son only 17. The son died of his injuries 6 days later. There was no question of her guilt, but because of the confusion of law and authority resulting from the removal of Governor Andros in 1689, Mercy somehow escaped execution for this murder and was still living in 1695. ||TUTTLE, Mercy (I57895)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Nathaniel Newman married (1) Sarah Husted, mother of his children Nathaniel, Samuel (Called Susannah in Barbour Index), Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel all recorded at Stamford. On 26 April 1751, Nathaniel Newman and "Sarah Newman alias Husted his wife" sold rights in the southern Common/Sequest Land to Samuel Hutton, "it being part of a right which did originally belong unto Moses Knapp late of Said Stamford deceased." He m, (2) Rebecca (?) who was the wife named in his will dated 30 Nov 1772 and probated 2 Mar 1773, along with children Nathaniel, Samuel, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Israel, Sarah wife of Enos Reynolds and Lydia wife of Abraham Rundle. Joshua Smith, his partner and husband of his niece Sarah(Newman) Smith, was a witness to his will and assisted in taking his inventory. Nathaniel Newman had sold a half interest in his grist mill on the mIanus River near his own dwelling house to Joshua Smith on 14 Oct 1746. He sold about 12 acres "at Newmans Farms so called" to his son nathaniel Newman Jr. on 29 Jan 1749/50. Nathaniel Newman and Joshua Smith jointly sold a right to William Gale to draw water from their mill to use for a fulling mill at the same site, on 13 August 1763. ||NEWMAN, Nathaniel (I41236)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Nicholas Knapp was in Watertown, Massachusetts by 1 March 1630/31, when he was fined for sellin some "water of noe worth nor value" as a cure for scurvy. Since this was wintertime when no ships made the Atlantic voyage, it is likely that he had arrived well before this time, perhaps during the summer of 1630. Anderson estimates that he was born by about 1606, based on the estimated date of his marriage. He died at Stamford between 15 and 27 April 1669/70, the dates of his will and his inventory. The family name was generally spelled KNAP until about 1800....|
His first wife and mother of his children, who died in Stamford on 16th day, 6th month (16 August) 1658, was named Eleanor (?). He married (2) at Stamford on 9 March 1658/59 Unica (?) (Buxton) (Brown), widow of Clement Buxton and Peter Brown. Since she was not mentioned in his will, she is presumed to have died before 1670.
The standard 'KNAPP GENEALOGY" is full of error and must be used with caution. It does, however, contain some interesting historical and biographical information, including a list of the lands of Nicholas Knapp in Watertown, and a complete transcription of his will. He appears to have left Watertown about May 1646, since he sold all the land he had received from the town there to Bryan Pendleton on the 6th day 3rd month 1646, and another acre of meadow (purchased separately in 1645) to Edward Garfield on the same date. According to one Stamford historian, he was briefly in Rye, New York, and nearby Greenwich before arriving in Stamford about 1649.
For some unknown reason, the Stamford Town Records do not contain a complete listing of the lands of Nicholas Knapp as they do for many other early residents. He is, however, mentioned regularly as an adjoining landholder in many of the other residents' summaries. the Town Records do contain an interesting purchase on 26 September 1651 by "nickels Knape" of Elias Bailey's house and home lot of 1 1/2 acre, purchased earlier by Bailey from John Coe, and adjacent to land already in Knapp's possession. Both Bailey and Coe left Stamford for Long Island, along with many other Stamford people.
Nicholas Knapp and his stepson Clement Buxton, son of his second wife Eunice, "the aforesayd Nichlas Knap haveing by and with the mariage of ye Widdow Busxton administrered upon ye estate of Clement Buxton, deceased" made an agreement on 8 March 1666/67 and recorded 31 January 1667/68, the young man having reached his majority, that he (Buxton) would receive title to his father's house and property in return for granting Knapp and his wife the life use of the house and 1/2 of the barn and home lot. On the following day (March 1666/67) Nicholas Knapp added an additional detail to the agreement in which he gave "unto Clement Buxton a beding in ye house wch I now am resedent in and what conveniancy I can conveniantly acommodate him with all for stoedge (storage) of what necisary things he have to put in so that it may be understood I grant him this priveledge as long as I shall live in the house. This my agreement made 9th March 1666.
Then, within a year on 19 October 1668, Nicholas Knap purchased the house and 1 1/2 acre homelot of Daniel Simpkins of Stamford for the price of "two oxen and one cow in hand resived & for full satisfaction." This homelot was between the homelots of Richard Scofield on the south and Thomas Lawrence on the north and bounded by the highway on the east and the mill lot on the west.
His will was dated at Stamford on 15 April (2nd Month) 1670, probated 21 October 1670, and named his children Moses, Timothy, Caleb, Joshua, Sarah Disbrowe, Hanna, Lidea, and Ruth. Sarah Buxton and Eunice Buxton are called daughters in law, and are left property out of the effects of their father Clement Buxton. His son Joshua Knapp was named executor and the will was witnessed by John Weed and Eleazer Slason. The inventory was taken 27 April 1669/70 by John Holly and Clement Buxton, and filed 31 October 1670.
|KNAPP, Nicholas (I34176)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": On 2 October 1798 Austin Smith Jr. of Stamford gave bond as guardian of Luke Smith, a son of Joshua Smith, late of Stamford, deceased. Austin Smith Jr's pension application file makes it clear that he was this person from Stamford, enlisting there on 1 Jan 1777, and aged 66 years in Aug 1820. During this enlistment he served three years with the ranks of Corporal (11 months) and Sergeant (13 months) in Col. Philip Bradley's Connecticut Regiment and was discharged on 29 Dec 1779 at Morristown, new Jersey. An earlier enlistment in Col. David Waterbury's Company of the 5th connecticut Regiment from 8 May to 13 Dec 1775 was clearly for this same "Austin Smith Jr." but not recognized at all in "Stamford's Soldiers". Another brief enlistment from 6 Dec 1776 to 11 Jan 1777 in Capt. Jonathan Whitney's Company of the 9th Connecticut Militia Regiment was almost certainly for this soldier although often attributed to his father. Austin Jr's older brother Gold Smith served in this same Company and it would have been extremely unlikely that a 48 year old father with a large family at home would have served in the same Company with his oldest son. Austin Smith, Jr. later resided in a variety of locations in New York State..... ||SMITH, Austin Jr. (I68929)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": On 23 Mar 1729/30 John Knapp of Stamford gave 2 acres of land in the North field on the wet side of the Stamford Mill river for love and affection to "my loveing son-in-law William King of Stamford". William King died before 1 Jan 1754 when Deborah was named administratrix of his estate. Deborah was still not remarried on 5 Mar 1759 when she filed William's inventory, but by 24 May 1763 had m. (2) Pierre Quintard, brother of her sister Hannah's husband Isaac Quintard. On that date, "Deborah Quintard, daughter of John Knap late of Stamford, deceased" was a grantor in a land transaction in Stamford. She did not have a marriage to David Bouton/Boughton, son of Capt. Samuel Boughton of Danbury, as claimed in several sources. That marriage was for another much younger Deborah Knapp, daughter of Francis Knapp of Danbury. ||KNAPP, Deborah (I34146)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Peter Ferris and his brother Joseph and brother-in-law Jonathan Reynolds were among the 12 Greenwich residents who decided to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the New Haven Colony on 6 October 1656. The exact nature of this transaction is not clear, since the Colony noted that "They are to fall in with Stamford, and be accepted a part thereof." Apparently there was some kind of a split within the Greenwich community, and it may be presumed that there wre others still resident in that town who preferred to remain under the prevailing Dutch control. No boundary changes seem to have resulted from this event.|
It does appear, however, that Peter Ferris was a resident of Stamford for most of his career. He held several positions of responsibility in that town over the years, including being named deputy (representative) to Connecticut General Court (Assembly) in 1667. All other references to Peter Ferris in Greenwich appear to relate to his son, Peter Ferris Jr.
The names of the children in this family have been confusing for researchers, at least partly because of incompleteness in the records. One of the boundaries in determining Peter's children has been his father Jeffrey's mention in his will, made on 6 January 1664, of "my sonn Peter Fferris his three children." On the surface, this seems to include Joseph, Peter Jr., and either Mary or the second Elizabeth, who was only 4 years old when Jeffrey made his will. The first Elizabeth is known to have died in infancy.
Another boundary on the identification of Peter's children is his making of two deeds of gift to his loving grandson Jeremiah Jagger on 24 May 1698 and 27 September 1706 (the latter was on the day before Peter died.) this Jeremiah Jagger was not yet 21 years old in 1698, and was therefore the third generation Jeremiah Jagger, born to Jeremiah Jagger and a daughter of Peter Ferris. Peter Ferris and Abraham Ambler administered the estate of Jeremiah Jagger in 1690, and Elisha Holly, Daniel Scofield and Peter Ferris took the inventory. The estate's largest debt (L30) was to Peter Ferris, and Jagger's heirs were named as (his children) Sarah age 13, Elizabeth age 11, Mary age 7 and Jeremiah age 5. Therefore the grandson Jeremiah had been born in about 1684, and his oldest sister Sarah had been born in about 1676. Their mother must have been born before say 1656 or so, assuming she was at 20 when her first child was born. This means (on the basis of age) she could not have been either Mary, born in 1662 or the second Elizabeth, born in 1664. Paul Prindle could only resolve this situation by postulating an earlier, first child for Peter Ferris, born perhaps as early as 1655, and perhaps called Sarah, since she gave her eldest child that name. This daughter would have been living at least as late as 1684 (when Jeremiah Jagger was born) and was therefore very much alive when Jeffrey Ferris made his will (in 1664) numbering only 3 children for his son Peter. Prindle solved THIS problem by supposing that Elizabeth (b. 1664) was not the third child named in her grandfather's will after all, and that the discrepancy could be explained either by Jeffrey's being unaware of a new grandchild born just 4 days before he made his will, or more likely, that it was due to a specific effect of old style dating, and that Elizabeth had not yet been born. This compilation accepts that arrangement, since this specific case was in the direct line of Prindle's client's ancestry, and he would have been sure to place the highest importance on getting it right. Capt. Jim Ferris was apparently unaware of this line of reasoning, and did not consider a possible additional daughter for Peter Ferris, born say bout 1655. His solution was to place the second Elizabeth as the wife of Jeremiah jagger and make her the mother of the four jagger grandchildren, and in the process he actually telescoped the first two Jeremiah Jaggers into one person. In addition to its misunderstanding of the Jagger family, this proposal is not viable since it requires the improbable situation that Elizabeth (b. 1664/65) was only about 12 years old when the oldest Jagger grandchild was born.
We now turn to the Hannah Ferris who married Capt. John Knapp at Stamford on 10 June 1692. She must have been born before about 1674, assuming she was at least 18 years old when married. She was the subject of queries to the "Hartford Times" and the "Boston Transcript", but apparently no one has yet conclusively proven her identity. In the only positive answer to these newspaper inquiries, H.S.C. gave the following statement," Hannah Ferris, daughter of Peter and Elizabeth (Reynolds) Ferris, married John Knapp June 10, 1692. She died afterwards, leaving two children, Samuel and John." Actually she left at least 7 children, Samuel, John, Hannah, Peter, charles, Deborah, and Moses. But the real problem here is that S.P Mead's History does not give this identity for Hannah at all, and as a matter of fact does not even list a Hannah Ferris as a daughter of Peter and Elizabeth.
Other writers have also included Hannah as a daughter of Peter Ferris, but without any real support. Nevertheless, it does seem reasonable to place Hannah here in this family, probably born sometime after Jeffrey Ferris died in 1666/67. In another "Boston Transcript" query, M.S.R.S. put the issue quite clearly as follows," She (Hannah) must have been of the third generation of Jeffrey Ferris' family. Was she the daughter of Peter or of Joseph Ferris? Mead's "Greenwich" gives Joseph a daughter Hannah, but as wife of Jonathan Austin. John Ferris and his family lived too far fro Stamford, and James Ferris was married too late. This seems to leave Peter Ferris as the only possible father for (the) above Hannah." Capt. Jim Ferris also placed Hannah in this family, but again without any supporting documentation.
There is some important additional evidence that tends to confirm that Hannah Ferris, wife of John Knapp, belongs in this family. First, it is probably significant that they named a child Peter, since the name Peter does not appear earlier in the Knapp line and this may therefore have been in honor of her father. Secondly, on 2 April 1712, the brothers Joseph and Peter Ferris, "sons of Peter Ferris late of Stamford deceased" ( and therefore Hannah's brothers if she were indeed a part of this family) sold a three-acre home lot in Stamford to John Knapp. it is significant that this land was described as "...whereon Standeth ye new Dwelling house and barn of sd John Knap." the fact that John Knapp had built his new house and barn on this land while it was still owned by this branch of the Ferris family is strong circumstantial evidence that he had indeed married a daughter of Peter Ferris Sr.
A letter in the Edich Vicks Papers at the Stamford Historical Society claims that the late Virginia Olson (co-author of "Stamford's Soldiers" and former genealogist of the Stamford Genealogical Society) had told the writer that "Peter and Elizabeth were the parents of Hannah. She (Mrs Olson) states, 'Hannah proved by deeds as the daughter of Peter but birth not recorded; married John Knapp 10 June 1692. She died 27 Sep 1724.' Mrs. Olson also quotes the "Hartford Times 12/28/1940 as giving reference to the relationship."
Although an excellent circumstantial case may be made for Hannah's placement in this family, it is not yet felt to be conclusive, and she must be paced here in this present compilation want the qualifier, "probably".
|FERRIS, Peter (I21949)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Peter married first at Stamford on 30 June 1726, Elizabeth Slason, daughter of John and Mary (Holmes) Slason, born at Stamford on 18 April 1703. She died on 12 Mary 1733 at Stamford, about a week after her fourth child, Mary, was born. On 24 April 1746, after the death of "my honored father John Slason late of Stamford deceased," John Slason (Jr.) referred to "my sister Elizabeth Knap deceased who was the former wife of Peter Knap" and her heirs Elizabeth, Hannah, Sarah and Mary Knapp. Her identity is further confirmed in a deed made by her daughter Sarah (Knapp) Smith with husband Austin Smith on 28 Mar 1753, n which they conveyed their right in Southern Common or Sequest Land in Stamford that "came down to us from the sd Sarah's grand father and grand mother John and Mary Slason late of sd tamford deceased & ye right was originally part of Old Mr. John Slason & George Slason & Old Mr. Stephen Holmes right a part of each of their lists in the year 1687."|
He married second at Stamford on 21 March 1734, Mary Slason, daughter of Jonathan and Mary Waterbury Slason, born at Stamford on 20 June 1704. the Stamford record of this marriage is deficient in the original, spelling her surname "Sl_on". The recorder, probably town clerk Lt. Samuel Weed, left out the letter 's' in the middle of her name, and this recording peculiarity has spawned a series of misinterpretations of her identity. First, the Rev. Elijah Baldwin Huntington copied her name as "Mary Sloon," and left it at that, with no interpretation or suggestions as to her identity. The transcription used for the Barbour Collection gave her name as Mary "sloan," and cross-referenced the spelling "Sloon" given by Huntington. but except for this one instance no persons at all by the name of Slaon, Sloan, or Sloon are found in any other early Stamford records.
The author of the "Slason Genealogy" correctly detected that the bride was named Mary Sla(s)on, but picked the wrong Mary. The authors of "Stamford's Soldiers" called her Mary Slason, but without further information.
Fortunately a Stamford land record clarified the identity of Peter Knapp's second wife. On 9 January 1740/41 Peter Knapp and Mary his wife, Samuel Bishop and rebecca his wife, and David Scofied and Sarah his wife, all of Stamford, sold to "our loving brother David Slason of said Stamford" rights in the sequestered lands of Stamford that "formerly belonged unto our honored father Jonathan Slason late of Stamford deceased." Also on this same date, Peter Knapp and Mary his wife sold their rights in the estate of "our 'Brother' Jonathan Slason late of said Stamford" to Samuel Bishop.
the "Slason Geneaology" stated ERRONEOUSLY that this Mary Slason (the daughter of Jonathan Slason and Mary Waterbury) had "married Peter King," without giving a date or any other citation, and gives a date for her death as "15 Mar 1724/25 at Stamford". There is no such Peter King marriage or Mary King death, in the Stamford records. This error probably stemmed from S.P. Mead's earlier transcription of the distribution of the estate of Jonathan Slason (Junior) in 1750 to "his brothers and sisters viz: George, Silas, Nathan, Abigail Webb, alias Goolsbery, Mary, wife of Peter King (sic), Sarah Wife of David Scofield, and Rebecca wife of Samuel Bishop." This error has also been perpetuated in the Slason section of the Bedford genealogies, probably because of the same transcription problem.
Mary, wife of Peter Knapp, was admitted to full communion at the Stamford Congregational Church on 31 December 1746.
Peter Knapp apparently built his first home on his father's property, since on 5 February 1730/31, Capt. John Knapp gave his loving son Peter Knapp for good will and affection "ye new Dweling house and home Lot of about Eight acres be ye same more of Less where he my ad son now Lives." The father, now calling himself "John Knap Senr," also gave his loving son Peter a tract of land (size not mentioned) between the Mill River and the Mianus River on 31 January 1739/40.
At a town Meeting of 16 December 1736, the Town of Stamford voted that "ye town gives liberty to john Knap Junr, Peter Knap, and John Penoyre theirs heirs etc. all of Stamford for to build a grit mill, on ye mill river, so called, at ye upper end of ye Still water, neare Peter Knaps home lott, provided they build sd mill in tow years after this time, and also provided they damnify no one perticuler persons land by daming sd river and also that ye said John Knap etc. be hereby obliged when sd mill be build as aforesd to grind first for ye people of this town and befoer any person of any other town or place and for their service in grinding of any graine they shall take ye sixteenth part and no more. voted in ye afirmitive."
In a record not yet explained, Thankful Bullard of Stamford chose "her uncle Peter Knapp" to be her guardian on 6 december 1748.
Peter Knapp and his wife Mary sold 4 acres in the Roxbury district of Stamford to their son in law, Samuel Buxton Junior on 18 January 1757. the deed was witnessed by Abraham Davenport and the couple's daughter, still single, "Daborah Knap."
On 8 September 1764, Peter Knapp and mary his wife sold their 5 acre farm in the Roxbury district, with buildings and fruit trees thereon, to "our son Peter Knapp Junior of Stamford," for L40 New York money, reserving the use and improvement of the property for themselves during their lifetimes. This was the last mention of Peter Knapp in the land records, and he may have died not long afterwards. With his real estate disposed, and no other sons or unmarried daughters to provide for by this time, there were no probate proceedings recorded for him in Stamford.
|KNAPP, Peter (I34178)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Prindle gives an excellent and complete account of Daniel Scofield's land transactions in Stamford, as well as his considerable public service. Over the years from the time he reached his majority about 1667-1668 until the time of his death in 1714 he served the town in countless ways, as selectman, on school and church committees, and in a variety of lesser elected and appointed positions He was regularly called upon to take inventories and assist in administration of estates. His children married into the families of many of Stamford's other leading citizens. His selection for service to the town indicated an obvious measure of respect that culminated in the designation as "Mr." in some records of his later years.|
Daniel Scofield died intestate at Stamford on 10 October 1714, and his son Samuel Scofield and son-in-law Lt. Samuel Weed were designated to administer the estate. His inventory was taken on 22 November 1714 and presented in Court by Samuel Scofield and Samuel Weed, countersigned by Samuel Hait/Hoyt (the smith), Samuel Weed, Daniel Weed, Daniel Scofield (clearly the son Daniel), Samuel Bates and "Serh Scofeld" (the latter not positively identified name). The inventory listed the homestead of Daniel Scofield and several other parcels of land throughout Stamford, but interestingly also included "the homestead of Joseph Scofield and "the homelot of Samuel Scofield," indicating that these two sons were still living on their father's lands......
|SCOFIELD, Daniel (I48599)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Stephen Holmes was born about 1633 and died at Stamford on 15 May 1710. His widow Martha ?, whose maiden name is still unknown, died at Stamford on 13 March 1727/28.|
Stephen Holmes and his brother John were on the list of 21 Stamford residents nominated and approved as freemen of the State of Connecticut at the General Assembly of 14 October 1669 at Hartford.
As the single recipient of his father's farmland in Stamford, Stephen Holmes acquired additional property in newly-divided sections of Stamford over the years through those original property rights. Paul Prindle found that Stephen received specific properties from the town directly in 1667, 1674, 1685 and 1687, and commonage from the town in 6 other layouts; was the grantee of other properties in 4 other deeds from individuals; and was the grantor in 25 deeds and one exchange.
As often happened in colonial times and even today, stephen Holmes disposed of most of his property by deed to his children and their spouses over a period from 1702-1704. Some of these properties were in later settlements away from Stamford center - for example, his gift to his son Samuel in 1706 was of 10 1/2 acres east of the Noroton River, therefore in what is now the town of Darien.
He provided for a homestead for his eldest son Samuel Holmes during his lifetime, but for some reason never transferred the title to Samuel. His widow Martha Holmes who was also the executor of his estate, rectified this on 10 December 1711, when she gave "all that lot of land whereon ye said Samuel Holmes now dwelleth" to Samuel on behalf of herself and her husband's estate.
The sons-in-law Elisha Holly, John Slason and John Hait also received property from Stephen Holmes, either during his lifetime or from his estate. Because of our particular interest in John Slason and the daughter Mary Holmes, we may note that on 8 October 1703, Stephen Holmes gave his daughter "Mary the wife of John Slason one acre of meadow in part of her portion." the deed was witnessed by Steven Holmes Jr. and Sarah Holmes, her H mark, and acknowledged as a deed of gift by David Waterbury, J.P.
|HOLMES, Stephen (I29510)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": the authoritative account of his life that appears in the book, "Ancestry of Elizabeth Barrett Gillespie", by Paul W. Prindle, F.A.S.G., may be relied upon with confidence. As reported by Prindle and others, Jonas Weed was a passenger in the Winthrop Fleet that sailed to the Massachusetts By in 1630, although the exact name of the ship he sailed on within that fleet cannot be determined. His residences in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Wethersfield, Connecticut prior o Stamford are already well documented by others including Paul W. Prindle and Robert C. Anderson and need not be duplicated here.|
No birth records appear to have survived for any of his 10 children, but they are all evident from other surviving records, and they were almost certainly all born in Connecticut. the list given by Prindle has recently been updated by Anderson (the Great Migration Begins) and is used here in preference to the Prindle list. All except the first three were probably born at Stamford.
|WEED, Jonas (I59964)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": The Slason Genealogy gives his parents names as Richard Slawson and Anne Angell, who were married at St. Saviour's Church in Southwark, Surrey on 13 March 1610. this Church is directly across the Thames River from London, and it is possible that Richard Slawson had come to the greater London area from some other place. Birth records for George Slason and his brother Thomas do not seem to have been found.|
Both the Slason Genealogy and the Bedford genealogies report that he "probably" immigrated to the New World on the ship "jonas" in 1636, but without further explanation.
George Slason was in lynn, Essex County, massachusetts by 1637 and soon afterward in Sandwich, Brnstavle County (Cape Cod), by 1638. the name of George Slason (but not Thomas) appeared on an undated list of men who had taken the Oath of fidelity at Sandwich. George Slason (but not Thomas) was awarded 2 acred in a division of meadow land in Sandwich dated 16 April 1640.
The Slason "brothers" apparently removed from Sandwich to Stamford during the first year of settlement of that town. Thomas Slason was granted a houe lot and another 3 acres, and presumably George was also, but no record of such a grant to George seems to have been preserved. There is no further record of this Thomas Slason in Stamford and although it has been claimed that he quickly returned to the Plymouth Colony, it also seems possible that the single record for Thomas in Stamford instead belonged to George all along and that Thomas therefore never exited - at least not as a Stamford resident.
In a difficult chapter from Stamford's early years, George Slason and (Thomas Stevenson) had the unfortunate experience of being accused by the new Haven Court on 1 April 1644 with being responsible for the escape of the Dutchman who had murdered Capt. Daniel Patrick, and who was under arrest and under their guard at Stamford. Apparently because of the mitigating circumstances offered by Slason and Stevenson in their own defense, the case was not pursued and no sentences imposed.
Stamford Historian the Rev. Mr. Huntington called George Slason an "exemplary member of the church, a peace maker, and one whom all delighted to honor." Huntington also related that George Slason was one of two Stamford leaders (along with Francis Bell) chosen to call the Rev. John Bishop to be pastor at Stamford, replacing the Rev. Richard Denton who had abruptly left Stamford without pastoral leadership in about 1644. The source for this account is not clear but it was reported as follows at a celebration of the Church in 1841:
"Rev. John Bishop succeeded Mr. (Richard) Denton (as pastor of the stamford Congregational Church). To show the value which the church placed in that age, upon the regular ministrations of the Gospel, I will state the method of making out the call to Mr. Bishop. Hearing he was in the neighborhood of Boston, two brethren, George Slason and Francis Bell, were deputed to go to Boston, and if he was to be found to make known to him the wishes of the Church. Although the country was full of hostile Indians, they went on foot carrying their provisions, and succeeded at length in finding Mr. Bishop "to the eastward of Boston." He accepted the call and returned with them on foot bringing his Bible under his arm, through the wilderness, to Stamford. (This Bible is still in the possession (in 1841) of Mr. Noah Bishop, one of his descendants.) Mr. Bishop labored here in the inistry nearly 50 years, and died in 1693."
The lands of George Slason were recorded in the Spring of 1650/51, when most of Stamford's land holdings were summarized in the Town Records. Unfortunately, the page has been torn so a complete description of some of his outlying land has been lost. His homelot, however, is described as "One house and home lot with an acre and half adjoining to it, the home lot, and it contains 3 acres, more or less, bounded by Obadiah Seeley to the South, Thomas Morris (to the) NOrth, abutting the highway (on the) West & the Meadow (on the) East."
George Slason served at least twice as Deputy (Representative) from Stamford to the New haven Colony Court at New Haven, in 1657 and 1663. After Stamford and the other New Haven Colony towns became a part of the Connecticut Colony, George Slason and his sons John and Eleazer were three of 21 Stamford men who were approved as freemen by the Connecticut Assembly at their meeting in Hartford of 14 October 1669.
He married (2) at Fairfield on 16 December 1680, Mary (Williams) Jennings widow of Joshua Jennings who had died at Fairfield in 1675. they had made an extensive pre-nuptial contract on 18 November 1680 including recognition that she would "bring two or three of her younger children with her." Mary (Williams) Jennings) Slason returned to Fairfield after the death of George Slason. She made her will there on 27 march 1697, naming her (own) children Matthew, isaac, Samuel, Joshua and Joseph Jennings and Mary Curtis, her grandson John Smith, and "daughter in law hannah Jennings." Her inventory was taken during 1697 and filed on 10 January 1697/98.
Prior to the time of his second marriage, George Slason transferred title to a substantial portion of his property in Stamford to his three children. On 10 September 1680, he confirmed and clearly identified lands that he had "formerly given" to his son in law John Gold to be his forever "as part or portion to or with my daughter Hanna." The gift included his house and 3 1/2 acre homelot on south Street, and another 3 acres of upland in the North Field. Apparently John Gold had previously made a partial payment to his father in law since he (Gold) signed a note attached to this deed of gift that courteously allowed his benefactor to keep the previous partial payment, "The aforsaid John Gold doth (in consideration of ye premises) aquit & discharg his farther-in-aw for named of what sum so ever ye said Gold paid in pte of purchase of he said house & lands, viz: three pounds or there abouts."
Then, about 2 month later on the 3rd day, 10th month (December) 1680, George Slason made substantial gifts of property to both of his sons, John and Eleazer. Both deeds were witnessed by Jonathan Bell and Samuel Weed, and for some reason were not recorded until 16th day 2nd month (April) 1686.
George Slason made his will at Stamford on 19 December 1694, mentioning his wife but not by name, and his sons John and Eleazer and his daughter the wife of John Gold. His signature is smudged on the document, but it is clear that he could write his own name at the time. He added a codicil about 3 weeks later (9 January 1694/5), signed at this time only with his G S mark. Both instruments were witnessed by Abraham Ambler and Samuel Holly.
His inventory was taken by Jonathan Bell and Jonas Weed and filed on 5 November 1695, consisting of over 25 acres of land and rights still remaining in his name, livestock, tools, household furnishings, and 3 old bibles.
|SLAWSON, George (I51397)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": They had moved to East Town, later the town of Westchester in Westchester County, New York before 11 Feb 1662 when the inhabitants of that town proposed his name to the Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant as one of 6 to be considered for the position of magistrate and he was apparently so selected. A year later (24 May 1663) Governor Stuyvesant again selected Robert Huestis as one of the three magistrates for that upcoming year (along with John Barker and Nicholas Bayley.) Both the Dutch and English jurisdictions claimed East Town as theirs and later that same year (8 Oct 1663) the Connecticut Colony made Robert "Huested" and 6 other residents of the town freemen of Connecticut. Robert and Elizabeth Huestis/Husted lived out their lived in Westchester, where he held several positions of leadership in that town. ||HUSTED, Robert (I31527)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": This family left some very interesting land records in Stamford, describing family relationships in considerable detail. In one of those deeds, made by John Slason on 25 December 1742, the grantor gave property to "my dearly beloved and loving sons in law and their wives, viz: Samuel Knap and Martha his wife, & Jonathan Brown and Mary his wife, & unto my dearly beloved and loving grand children viz: the children of my beloved daughter Elizabeth Knap deceased who was the former wife of Peter Knap." The deed was for rights in Sequest lands, and mentions that some of those rights had previously belonged to "my brother Stephen Holmes that was father Holmes right," and "my grand father George Slason's right." For good measure, the grantees are named again three or four more times in the same document!|
One of those grandchildren specified but not named by John Slason (Sarah(Knapp) Smith, daughter of Elizabeth Slason and Peter Knapp), made a deed with her husband Austin Smith on 28 March 1753 in which they conveyed their right in Southern Common or Sequest Land in Stamford that "came down to us from the sd Sarah's grand father and grand mother John and Mary Slason late of sd Stamford deceased & ye right was originally part of Old Mr. John Slason & George Slason & Old Mr. Stephen Holmes right a part of each of their lists in the year 1687."
|SLASON, John (I50189)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Thomas Brush was first noted in Southold, Long Island, New York in a record of 8 October 1655 when he was mentioned in an affidavit, but is thought to have been there earlier, perhaps about 1650 or 1651. His English origin has not yet been determined. He was born say about 1630, most likely in England, and died at Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York probably shortly afteer 26 april 1670 when a document shows his signature, and certainly before June 1677 when his estate was settled. The person named Thomas Brush who appears as a party to Huntington records after 1670 was most likely his son by that name, no longer needing to use the suffix "jr." to differentiate him from his father.|
Some researchers have claimed that he was a son of one John Brush of Southold, but I have not been able to find any primary source documentation that would support this claim, and it is considered very speculative.
Probably about 1650/51 and possibly in Southold, he is presumed to have married REBECCA CONKLIN, daughter of John Conklin and Elizabeth Alseabrook. The Conlkin (or Concklyne) family had come to Long Island from Salem, Massachusetts, but no records of Thomas Brush have been found in that earlier place. Richard Brush, possibly the brother of Thomas Brush and closely associated with his family on Long Island, is known to have been in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1658, and later the two had adjoining lands in Huntington. It would not be unexpected to find the origins of Thomas Brush, Richard Brush, and John Conklin in the same community(ies) in England.
town Meeting of 15 October 1660 voted that "goodman (Thomas) Brush shall keepe the ordinary so long as hee do...(etc)." He therefore appears to have been Huntington's first innkeeper.
Thomas Brush retuned briefly to Southold, where he purchases some land in 1661, and was made a freeman of the Connecticut Colony on 9 October 1662. On 11 April 1663, Thomas Brush and John Tucker, Gent., both of Southold, sold the property at Southold where Brush had been living to Thomas Mapes. rebecca, wife of Thomas Brush, gave her approval to the sale, and this record is apparently the only mention of the given name of his wife. He had certainly returned to Huntington by 1 June 1663, when the town named him to a select committee of four men to survey and record the boundaries and owners of all of the existing land holdings in Huntington, and to distribute additional lands within the town boundaries at their discretion - a very important responsibility.
The estate of Thomas Brush was administered by his son thomas and on 11 August (6th month) 1677 the daughter rebecca Brush made receipt "of my brother Thomas administrator one oure fathers estate my full proportion of yt estate to Content(,) it being to ye value of fifty pounds & thirteen shillins & fower pence." her brother John Brush received an identical amount and made a similar receipt on the same date. rebecca signed with her X mark and John made his own signature. Jonas Wood and Joseph Whitman witnessed both receipts.
There does not seem to be any further mention of a widow Rebecca (Conklin) Brush, and she may have died around the same time as her husband. One reference gives a date for her death of 9 April 1670, but without reference to any original source. There is also no record of any second marriage for her, even though there were several minor children. At any rate, her father John Conklin was appointed overseer of those minor children, and they were taken back into their grandfather's home.
|BRUSH, Thomas (I68836)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Thomas Newman died at Stamford between 21 May and 2 October 1714, the dates of his will and its probate. No basis has been found for estimating the date of his birth, since none of the dates of his marriage or the births of any of his children seem to have been recorded. Some references give the year of his birth as 1643, but without giving any reasons.|
His wife's name was Mary ? as given in his will and the distribution of his estate. We have no further information on her, including whether or not she was the other of all of his children.
His will was dated at Stamford on 21 May 1714, and mentioned his wife Mary, and his children John, Nathaniel, Jonathan, Thomas and son in law Daniel Briggs. The executrix was to be his wife Mary Newman, and the witnesses were John Holly, James June and Ebenezer Smith. The original will has been preserved, and it can be seen that he signed with a signature, although with a very unsteady hand. His inventory was taken on 2 September and filed 1 November 1714.
His children were parties to an agreement made on 1 Dec 1729 along with Robert Harris, to build a saw mill "on the Mianus river about eight rods south of Nathaniel Newman's dwelling house." The agreement was witnessed by John Bell, and signed by Robert Harris, John Newman, Daniel Briggs, Jonathan Newman, Thomas Newman, and Nathaniel Newman (his X mark).
|NEWMAN, Thomas (I41242)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Thomas Newman made his will at East Towne in New Netherland (later the town of Westchester in Westchester County, New York) on 2 June 1659, and died sometime in March, 1660, possibly at Stamford. He was born presumably in England, about 1584. The Rev. Mr. Huntington called him "probably son of William," but this may simply have been a deduction based on the name of Thomas' oldest son.|
The name of his wife and mother of his children has been given as MARY MORRTON, apparently based on a marriage record for Thomas Newman and Mary Moorton at St. Saviours Church, Southwark, Surrey, England dated 28 September 1607. No confirmation has been found, however, that this record refers to the same Thomas Newman of Stamford and east towne. It has also been claimed that he married one Mary Carles, daughter of joseph Carles, and this is probably related to the fact that his will mentioned a GRANDDAUGHTER named Mary Carles, who married John Archer. The granddaughter could have been his own, or his wife's or both of theirs together, and therefore, Catherine Carles is not necessarily a descendant. His will uses the specific phrase "my now surviving wife Mary," but this does not automatically mean that he was married more than once, or even that he had two different wives named Mary. the will further stipulates that his son William Newman of Stamford was to provide for his widow "in all respects whatsoever as a woman of her age & degree ought to be, during her surviving." This mention of "degree" could indicate a particular social status, which could lead in turn to a better indication of the widow's identity.....
Another Thomas Newman is said to have come to America in 1634 on the ship "Mary and John", along with his father William, wife Mary, and son John. This Thomas Newman has sometimes been confused with the Stamford man, but they were entirely different persons. Thomas Newman of Ipswich, the "Mary and John" passenger, was leaving records there in Ipswich, Massachusetts in about 1673, leaving a widow Alice, who died 19 November 1679. Savage said that he left sons Thomas, John and Benjamin, and these persons are evident in the Ipswich records. Thomas Newman of Stamford mentioned no such people in his will.
Donald L. Jacobus thought it possible that William Newman of Stamford (and therefore Thomas of Stamford) may have been related to one Richard Newman who was in New Haven in 1641, died after 1680, and had children Samuel, John, Sarah and Mercy. Except for this possible clue, there seems to be no other indication of Thomas Newman's origin, presumably in England.
The lands of Thomas Newman were records at Stamford on 1 March 1649/50 as part of a general recording project that took place at that tie. His holdings then were the following:
1. One house and home lot containing an acre and a half, bounded by the highway north, Robert Rugg south, butting to the highway east and Jeffrey Ferris west;
2. In the North Field 6 acres of upland, bounded by Daniel Scofield and Henry Ackerly on the south, and Henry Smith and william Newman to the north, butting to the highway west and the fence east;
3. In the East Field a little island encompassed with (by?) the meadow of David Mitchell on the east and north, and the meadow of Obadiah Seeley to the south and west;
4. In the same field, 5 more acres of meadow, bounded by Robert BAtes to the south, Richard Ambler to the north, butting to the highway west and the Sea east;
5. In the Rocky Neck, 2 acres of meadow, bounded by Thomas Morehouse to the south & William Mead on the north, butting to the highway west, and the upland of William Newman to the east;
6. In the North Field, 3 acres of upland, bounded by thomas Morehouse to the south, William Newman north, butting to the highway east and the River west.
Thomas Newman was one of the Stamford residents who were uncomfortable with the government of their Colony located at New Haven, and apparently had signed a letter that was "very offensive" to the Court at New Haven in 1653. William Newman was summoned to the Court representing his father "in respect of his age", and expressed to the Court that both he and his father were sorry for the disrespectful things they had done, and that it would not happen again. William Newman was not fined, but was required to post a L20 bond to help insure that both he and his father would be more cooperative with the New Haven jurisdiction in the future.
Possibly because of this political difficulty with the New Haven jurisdiction, Thomas Newman moved to Oost-dorp or East Towne New Netherland (later the town of Westchester), some time before 16 March 1656 (probably 1655/56) when his name was listed among the 14 English residents of that place that "voluntarily submitted themselves to the government of the New Netherlands." At the end of December 1656 an official delegation fro Director General Peter Stuyvesant's office visited East Town. The delegation dines at Mr. Newman's home on Sunday 31 December after which the delegation attended church services with the inhabitants of the village. That portion of their journal reads as follows:
"Went to examine the Village somewhat. It is a very stoney place, thickly covered with trees. At noon were invited to dine at Mr. Newman's. After dinner Conrelius Van Ruyven went to the house where they assemble on Sundays, to observe their mode of worship, as they have not as yet any clergyman. There I (Briah Nuton) found a gathering of about 15 men and 10 to 12 women. Mr. Baly (BAiley) made a prayer, which being concluded, one Robert Basset read a sermon from a printed book composed and published by an English minister in England. After the reading Mr. Baly made another prayer and they sung a Psalm and separated. In the evening we were invited to supper to Robert Basset's, and having taken our leave we went to sleep at John Lord's house; neither he nor any of the members of his family came home that night, which much surprised us."
The journal goes on to report that John Lord and his family returned in the morning and that they had stayed away overnight in order that the official visitors not be overcrowded in what must have been a very modest home in a wilderness location. It also mentioned that on the following day, 1 January 1657:
"We requested him (meaning John Lord) to have the drum beaten forthwith to get the people together; to which he said, he had given orders to beat the drum, and the majority of the inhabitants being assembled we communicated to them the object of our mission, and that the Hr Director General of N. Netherland had from the six persons named by them elected three as Magistrates for Oostdorp, vix. Mr. Newman, Mr. Lord, & John Smith, and exhibited and read to them the commission granted to the Magistrates."
His will, made on 2 June 1659 at East Town, is the source of much of the information we presently have on Thomas Newman, and many of its provisions have already been noted. He called himself, "in good health of body and of sound minde & understanding, yet not knowing how soone my chang may be..." Because we know he was in good health and sound mind it is therefore significant that he signed the will with his mark, a capital letter N, written backwards. It named his wife Mary and son William of Stamford and left legacies to his granddaughter "Katherine Carles alias Archer, the wife of John Archer" (20 shillings), and to "every of his (William's) surviving children at my decease, the sume of five pounds per piece." His son William was to be executor, and to receive the entire estate, except for the above provisions for others and his responsibility to care for the widow. The will was witnessed by Richard Mills and Samuel Mills, transcribed and attested under oath by them at Stamford before the town clerk Richard Law on 22 day 12th month, 1660, or 22 February, 1659/60.
|NEWMAN, Thomas (I69159)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Thomas Stevens was in Stamford at least by 1649 (probably as early as 1641), and died there on 19th day, 6th month (August) 1658, as a relatively young family man. He is often said to have been a close relative, either a brother or son, of a John Stevens, also of Stamford. This seems to be due to the single mention of a John Stevens in the Stamford Town Records, that being a surviving fragment of a legal proceeding in which Abram Ambler Sr. gave bond in connection with an attachment "taken out agst John Stevens, Ye (...words missing...) Fairfield this 21st April 1686." The Rev. Mr. Huntington placed this John Stevens on his list of first settlers of Stamford, since he found another record in which (?) Stevens had been granted land on 7 December 1641. The official transcription of the Town Records does not give the final letter in the first name of this Stevens as "n" as did Mr. Huntington, and in fact does not give any letters at all for that first name. Since there are not other records at all for a John Stevens in Stamford, I believe we may conclude that no such person ever existed in that town (at least before 1686, and then instead more likely in Fairfield, as suggested by the above record fragment.|
It therefore seems probable that our subject THOMAS Stevens was the person granted a house lot in 1641, and that he should be placed on the lists of original Stamford settlers instead of John. Savage apparently came to the same conclusion, since his comprehensive GENEALOGICAL DICTIONARY places Thomas Stevens in Stamford in 1641.
Furthermore, the New Haven colony Records document an episode at Stamford in November 1643 in which a Thomas "Stevenson," along with George Slason, was assigned to guard a Dutch prisoner overnight, and who was later charged, at a New Haven Magistrates Court on 1 April 1644, with the responsibility for the prisoner's escape. There are no other records of anyone named Stevenson in Stamford at this time and it is very likely that this situation involved our subject Thomas Stevens instead.
Certainly Thomas Stevens had accumulated several pieces of property in Stamford before the general real estate inventory that was made in 1649-1652 for the Town Records. Although there is no survey of his own lands at that time in the surviving records, he appeared as an adjoining property owner in the descriptions of the lands of at least 9 different neighbors, with the earliest record being that of Thomas Morehouse on the 31st day, 11th month(February) 1649/50. This accumulation of property confirms that Thomas Stevens must have been in Stamford for a considerable time before 1650, reinforcing the theory that it was he who arrived in 1641, and not some other Stevens individual (and also that he was probably the Thomas "Stevenson" of the Dutch prisoner incident).
Several very incomplete and imperfect genealogies have been published covering one or more individual lines from Thomas Stevens, and no comprehensive family genealogy is available at this time. Perhaps the most complete (and very careful) study of the family to date has been published in chart form by Mrs. Halstead. Her chart entitled "Stevens Family" appeared in the New Canaan Historical Society's first ANNUAL in 1946.
Thomas Stevens married at an unknown time and place, Ann (?), who survived him and married (2) sometime after 1658, Frances Holmes, another early Stamford settler. Several writers have reported this relationship, but without documentation. The evidence is contained, however, in the following Stamford Land records. On 20 December 1686, the brothers Obadiah, Benjamin and Joseph Stevens agreed that their mother, "the widow Homs," would live with her son benjamin Stevens, with some support being provided by the other two brothers in the form of certain specified gifts of animals. And, on 1 April 1689, Ann Homs, widow, signing with her X mark, gave "a sartain ox" to her son Joseph Stevens. Francis Holmes had died at Stamford before 14 February 1675/76 when his inventory was taken.
None of the children of Thomas Stevens had their births recorded at Stamford. The names of Obadiah, Benjamin and Joseph come from the land records already mentioned. Ephraim Stevens was granted a house lot by the town on 25 February 1668/69, and died before 1676/77 when his estate was distributed to his brothers and sister, including Obadiah Stevens and Obadiah Seeley, who had married the sister, Esther Stevens. Obadiah Seeley and Obadiah Stevens agreed on 2 January 1676/77 that "our two brothers Benjamin and Joseph Stevens" should have their brother Ephraim's entire estate. Some writers have proposed a fifth son, a Thomas Stevens Jr., presumably named for his father, who "had land in Stamford in 1670", but this appears to be in error. The land record quoted for 1670 actually refers to "ye land yt was Thomas Stevens", and therefore does not prove a person by that name living in 1670. both Obadiah and Benjamin had sons named thomas Stevens, but their father apparently did not, at least not one that survived to manhood.
Thomas Stevens made his will at Stamford on 18 August 1658 (the day before his death), and it was probated at Fairfield on 30 November 1658. the will mentioned a wife and children, but no names were given. Thomas Stevens, signed with his "T.S." mark, which is more than a typical "X" and may indicate some education, and the use of initials perhaps due to extreme weakness at the time of signing. His wife was to receive the entire estate for her benefit in bringing up the children, but if she were to remarry, then the estate was to be divided into thirds, with the wife receiving one third and the children receiving 2/3 as a group, with the eldest son to receive a double child's portion "if he be deserving."
The estate was settled by the Fairfield Probate Court on 14 March 1670/71, with the court naming the eldest son Obadiah Stevens administrator at that time, about 12 years after his father's death. Obadiah must have been found deserving, since he was granted the full double portion......
|STEVENS, Thomas (I55219)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Thomas Wickes (or Wilks) was born about 1615, perhaps in Shottery, a suburb of Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire, England, perhaps a son of Edward Wilks and Katherine Rogers. Katherine Rogers was a sister of Thomas Rogers and aunt of William Rogers, the immigrant to America who was closely associated with Thomas Wickes. Thomas Wickes died at Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island, new York between 3 July 1670 and 19 march 1670/71. Care must be taken to distinguish him and his family from the "Thomas Weeks of Oyster Bay, Long Island". |
The name of his wife has not been determined, although Seversmith felt it was possible that she was related to Jonas Wood "Oram." Thomas Wicks and Jonas Wood "Oram" were certainly closely associated in Huntington records and shared many boundaries with each other.
There can be no question that his name was spelled both Wilks/Wilkes on the one hand and Wicks/Wickes on the other, even though we don't know the reasons. Joseph Bailey, the official records of the Town of Huntington (Whose own name was often spelled Bayley or even Baiely), recorded Thomas Wickes' land holdings and those of his son and namesake in Huntington in 1669. A perfect transcription of those records demonstrated that in both cases, the recorder, while not being completely consistent, nevertheless make the clear efort to give spellings of the name both with and without the (1) namely, "the Record of the lands and Medow off Thomas Wilks (Wickes) Senr in the year 1669", and "the Record of the Lands and Medow off Thomas Wilks (Wicks) Junior in the yeare 1669". The spelling "Wickes" is used herein to reflect the most common usage of his descendants.
Thomas Wickes appears to have made the same migrations as many other early stamford families. He was in Watertown, Massachusetts in 1635, and shortly afterward in Wethersfield, Connecticut with the first settlers there. he was part of the Wethersfield group that agreed to settle Stamford, Connecticut, and was in Stamford with the first group in 1641. Except for his original agreement to settle there, and some very early tax information, there are no further records of Thomas Wickes in Stamford.
Many Stamford settlers soon left with the Rev. Richard Denton to settle a community at Hempstead, Long Island in 1643-1644, and Thomas Wickes was part of this group, as well. A later (undated) summary of the rights of the original proprietors of Hempstead includes a section of considerable property "Laid Out to the Propriety Right and blank of Thomas Wilks Ye Following Parcells of land viz." Since all the other rights so listed were to original Hampstead proprietors, we may conclude that he was among them. A reconstructed overall listing of those proprietors that appeared in the same published volume of Hempstead Records included the name of "Thomas Hicks", which has more recently been shown to be an error for the correct name, "Thomas Wilks." In 1724, his son Thomas Wickes of Huntington made a quit claim deed to Joseph Smith of Hempstead for "all Such right Estate title Interest and Demand Whatsoever as he the said Thomas Wickes had or ought to have of in or to all those tracts of parcels of Land and Meadow Land With all those Rights of Land Within the Township of Hempstead that did formerly belong to Thomas Wickes of Hempstead formerly Deceased by any ways or Means Whatsoever."
Thomas Wickes made one more move during his lifetime, that being to another new settlement on Long Island at Huntington. On 30 July 1656, Jonas Wood, William Rogers and Thomas "Wilkes" purchased the major portion of what would become the Huntington Lands from Asharoken Montinnicok, Sachem, and the other native Americans "for and inconsideration of 2 coates, fore shertes, seven quarts of licker and aleven ounces of powther." If he were indeed the son of Katherine Rogers of Stratford0on-Avon, then he and William Rogers would have been first cousins. Thomas Wickes was a significant landholder in Huntington. The 1699 listing made by BAiley for the town records described 9 separate parcels scattered throughout the town, the largest being about 8 acres "Late in the tenor or ocupacon of Noah Rogers but since estrainged to Thomas Wilks." Noah Rogers was a brother of jonathan Rogers who married Thomas Wickes' eldest daughter Rebecca.
A Huntington town meeting of 7 June 1662 decided to require that any new settlers desiring to purchase lands in that town be first reviewed and approved by a committee consisting of Mr. Leverge (the minister), William Smith, Thomas Weekes, John Lum, Goodman (thomas) Jones, James Chichester and Jonas Wood.
Thomas Wickes made his will at Huntington on 3 July 1670, witnessed by Samuel Wood and Caleb Wood. His wife (not named) was to receive the use of 1/3 of his "accommodations" for her life, then to son John. he also mentioned his son thomas, Daughters Rebecca and martha and their children, and other children Elizabeth, Mary and Sarah. Isaac Platt and Thomas Powell were named executors. Unfortunately for us today, he did not give the married names of either of the two daughters who were married and had children by 1670. Letters of Administration were granted to "widow Wickes" on 19 March 1671.
|WICKES, Thomas (I68901)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": William Newman was born about 1610, and died at Stamford between 18 August and 18 November 1676, the dates of his will and its probate..A wife Elizabeth ? for whom we have no further information, was named in his will.|
He and his father were both settlers of Stamford during its first year, 1642. They probably did not come from Wethersfield with the majority of the other early settlers, but their place of origin is still unknown.
the lands of William Newman were recorded at Stamford on 1 March 1649/50 as follows:
1. One house and home lot containing an acre and a half, Bounded by William Graves to the east, John Elliot west, abutting the highway north and the meadows south;
2. Also another house and house lot, containing 3 acres, bounded by Nicholas Knapp and common land to the north, Henry Ackerly, William Potter and Common Land south, butting to the highway west and the common east;
3. In the North Field, 12 acres of upland, bounded by David Mitchell north, Nicholas Theale south, butting to the fence east, and the River west;
4. In the same field, 10 more acres of upland, bounded by Thomas Newman south, Nicholas Knapp north, butting to the highway east, and the River west;
5. In the same field, 3 more acres of upland, bounded by the rails (fence) east, Henry Smith and Francis Bell west, Thomas Neman south, Francis Bell north;
6. In Rocky Neck, 7 1/2 acres of upland, 4 1/2 acres of the said parcel is waste land, bounded by Francis Bell to the south, William Mead to the north, butting to William Mead, thomas Morehouse & Thomas Newman west, Nicholas Knapp east, a highway through the west end of it;
7. In the East Field, 4 acres of meadow, bounded by Thomas Hyatt south, Vincent Simkins north, butting Henry Ackerly west, the highway east, with 12 rods fence as it was layed out by ?;
8. In the same field, 6 acres meadow down in the South field fence belonging (?), bounded by Vincent Simkins on the south and north, butting to the highway east, Jeffery Ferris and John Finch west;
9. In the same field, 2 more acres of meadow, bounded by Daniel Scofield south, Henry Ackerly north, butting to the highway west, and Jonas Weed east.
Difficulties with the Court at New Haven in 1654 (along with his father) have already been described. Just prior to his father's death, on 25 May 1659, the New Haven Court turned to William Newman to settle a dispute that was current in the colony concerning "wrong done in the sizes of shooes." William Newman of Stamford was said to have been in the possession of an instrument that he had brought from England, that was capable of determining the correct sizes of shoes, and that instrument was ordered to be bought to New Haven to serve as model for a standard to be made to serve the needs of the entire Colony. There is no further information on this subject, and we may assume that William either complied, or the illness and death of his father intervened in the completion of this project.
His will was dated at Stamford on 18 August (6th month) and probated on 18 November (9th month) 1676. He mentioned his wife Elizabeth, and children Thomas, Daniel, "John" (who died before the probate), Sarah, Elizabeth and Hannah. His inventory was taken and filed on the date of probate. Also on the same date of probate, an agreement was made between and among the (remaining) heirs.
|NEWMAN, William (I41244)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": William Rogers was born at Stratford-On-Avon, Warwickshire,England about 1612, and was baptized there on 7 February 1612/13, the son of one Thomas Rogers, whose identity has not been resolved by earlier researchers. He died at Huntington, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York "probably rather suddenly" on 13 July 1664. |
it is important to note that William's father was not the Thomas Rogers who was among the passengers of the MAYFLOWER. One author describes the situation as follows:
"Thomas Rogers of Stratford-on-Avon, father of William Rogers was not Thomas Rogers of the 'Mayflower'. The Rogers family was numerous and prominent in Stratford-on-Avon. Thomas rogers, Bailiff and alderman, who was buried February 20 1610/11, was of this family. This Thomas had at least 16 children, one becoming mother of the John Harvard of New England. The handsome Rogers House in Stratford-on-Avon which the alderman Thomas Rogers built in 1596 is believed to still be standing."
Some authors have called him a member of the followers of the Rev. Richard Denton who settled in succession Wethersfield and Stamford, Connecticut, and Hempstead,on Long Island, but this appears to be an overstatement. William Rogers did in fact own property in Wethersfield by 1645, but he is not listed among the first settlers of that town who came from Watertown in 1635 and 1636. Although it is reasonable to presume that he spent some earlier time in Massachusetts, he is not mentioned in Savage's "Genealogical Dictionary" at all, and apparently did not leave any records elsewhere in new England prior to the land ownership in Wethersfield. Seversmith said he appeared "supposedly" in Boston in 1638, but gave no source for the statement. Seversmith also call him a "cousin" of Thomas Wickes/Wilkes of Wethersfield and Huntington.
He married Anna or Anne hall at Stratford-On-Avon on 2 February 1630/31. She survived her husband and died 22 November 1669 and 21 February 1669/70, the dates of he will and its probate. The suggestion by Miner and Jacobus that she was possibly Anne Sherman, daughter of Edmund Sherman of Dedham, England and Wethersfield, is NOT mentioned at all by Seversmith, and appears to have been superseded by Seversmith's more detailed discoveries. In particular, Seversmith noticed in the parish registers that Anne was probably identical with that Anne Hall, illegitimate daughter of Grace Hll, who was baptized at Sratford-on-Avon on 16 February 1612/13, less than one week after the baptism there of William Rogers. Anne's mother appears to have been Grace, daughter of robert "hawle", who was baptized at Stratford-on-Avon on 18 june 1583.
William Rogers was in Southampton, Long Island at an early time, but the exact sequence of his residences is not clear. The Southampton historian Mr. Howell gave the following account:
"William Rogers is mentioned as a resident of Southampton from 1642, so, at least, March 1645-6. In 1645 the Gen. Court of Connecticut mad him a grant of land. In 1649 he is made freeman. he appears to have had a home in Hempstead, for a few years previous to 1649. From 1649 to 1655 we find him an inhabitant of Southampton, and after this he disappears altogether...Subsequent to 1655, Obadiah Rogers is mentioned as residing on the homestead that William had occupied...Now it is probable that William gave the Southampton homestead to his son Obadiah about 1655, and with his wife and younger children removed to Huntington where he might have resided several years."
We do know that on 30 July 1656, Jonas Wood, William Rogers and Thomas Wilkes purchased the major portion of what would become the Huntington lands from Asharoken Montinnicok, Sachem, and the other native Americans "for and in consideration of 2 coates, fore shertes, seven quarts of licker and aleven ounces of powther." This agrees very well with Mr. Howell's estimate of the time William Rogers moved to Huntington.
William Rogers did not leave a will (at least not one that has survived), but the will of Anne Rogers of Huntington mentioned her son Obadiah and his eldest son (not identified by name), her sons John, Noah and Samuel, and her daughters mary and hannah. Miner and Jacobus found that "Although Jonathan was not named in the will, he was called brother by Noah in a conveyance and was certainly son of William, though possibly by a former wife." Seversmith presumed that Jonathan was left out because of a family disagreement, but a more plausible argument might be that Jonathan had already received his portion. At any rate, if Anne was indeed the person who married William Rogers in England in 1630, the Jonathan (baptized in 1636 and still living in 1669) must have been her son. samuel is felt by most writers to have been not her own child but the husband of her daughter Mary, probably Samuel Titus.
Hebert F. Seversmith, "Colonial Families of Long Island, New York and Connecticut", manuscript notebook #6 of 11, microfilm copy used at the connecticut State Library, 780. Seversmith's treatment is by far the most complete one available, and is used extensively herein. Although the citations are at a minimum, he was a careful researcher and his work is highly regarded.
|ROGERS, William (I47166)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": William Tuttle and his young family signed on to the list of passengers on the "Planter", Mr. Nicholas Travice (Travis), master, bound from London to the New England in the spring of 1635, leaving Gravesend on 2 April, 1635, bound for Boston.|
"William Tuttell, husbandman 26 (abt. 1609)
Elizabeth Tuttell 23 (abt. 1612)
John Tuttell 3 1/2 (abt. 1632)
Ann Tuttell 2 1/4 (abt. 1633)
Thonas Tuttell 3 months (b. 1635)
The overall list of names of passengers on the "Planter" is extremely important in that it contains the names of the other related Tuttle families as well as such other well-known early connecticut settlers as William Wilcockson and William Beardsley, and (Mrs.) Eglin Hanford and her daughters Margaret and Elizabeth Hanford, mother and sisters of the Rev. Thomas Hanford later to become the first pastor of the settlement at Norwalk, Connecticut. This was indeed a handsome passenger list and the potential connections between and among these people is typical of Great Migration settlers who migrated together to New England and were associated in various ways thereafter.
William Tuttle settled in Charlestown, Massachusetts, while his brother Richard went to Boston proper and John went on to Ipswich. During his first year at Charlestown, William Tuttle was given permission to build a windmill there, and his wife joined the Boston Church shortly afterward on 24 July 1636, as did many other Charlestown families.
His incentive for joining with the Davenport - Eaton group in the founding of New Haven is not known. For whatever reason, however, he moved with his family to New Haven sometime between his son David's baptism at Boston on 7 April 1639, and 4 June 1639 when his name appeared as a signer of the Fundamental Agreement of the first planters of New Haven.
"Will Touttle" was listed in a place of importance (5th on the list even though his estate was not among the highest in value) on New Haven's comprehensive grand list of planters and heir properties and tax rates in late 1640. This list tells us that there were 7 persons in William Tuttle's household at that time. Bob Anderson used this fact, couples with the fact that an additional child was baptized on 22 November 1640, to determine one boundary of the time of making this otherwise undated list.
With other colonial interests beginning to contend for rights in the Long Island Sound region, the New Haven Colony demanded an Oath of Fidelity be taken by its residents in the summer of 1644 (and afterward until the Colony was absorbed by Connecticut in 1662). William Tuttle was among 28 planters taking that oath on 5 August 1644.
There are several good printed summaries of William Tuttle's numerous records in New Haven, and they will not need to be repeated here. Of these, the most comprehensive are the Tuttle Genealogy itself, Paul Prindle's Gillespie Ancestry (178-90), Branch of Simon (85-105), and Moore Genealogy (532-47). From these records most researchers have concluded that William Tuttle was held in high regard for his judgment and fairness; that he was regularly assigned prominent seating positions in the church sanctuary, also indicating high regard in the community (and solid support for the church); and that he often held positions of responsibility having to do wit boundaries and personal disputes, but did not seek or fulfill any major elected offices.
He owned a considerable amount of property throughout the greater New Haven area, described in detail in many of the same references just cited. After his death and that of his widow, his homestead property at the corner of College and Chapel Streets in New Haven was sold out of the family by its administrators and in 1717 became the site of the newly organized Yale College, later yale University. "The Tuttle homestead was the only land owned by the college for nearly 30 years. It was the first of a long series of purchases (by the college) extending through a period of more than a century, which finally bought the whole of the College Square into its possession. In these transfers, descendants of Wm. Tuttle, who at one time or another owned a considerable part of the square, appear as grantors, either directly to the college or to intermediate holders."
I have not been able to find a concrete reason why three of the Tuttle children married into families from Stamford Although Stamford was originally part of the New Haven Colony, it was quite well separated by distance, and the towns of Norwalk, Fairfield and Stratford, all part of the Connecticut Colony, lay between Stamford and the nearest New Haven Colony Settlement at Milford. Jonathan married Rebecca Bell who had been born in Stamford, Sarah married John Slason who had been born in Stamford, and many of their brother John's children moved to Norwalk and Stamford as well, so his wife Catherine Lane may have been a Stamford girl. Since William Tuttle's brothers both settled in other parts of New England, it may have been Elizabeth (?) Tuttle William's wife, who was one who had the Stamford associations. Until her identity can be determined, this curious connection with Stamford families will have to remain a mystery.
William and Elizabeth Tuttle had to deal with more than their share of problems in their children's lives. This heavy dose of family difficulty was glossed over and generally not even mentioned by the 1883 Tuttle Genealogy, probably out of a desire to spare many descendants fro embarrassment. Later writers, however, notably Prindle and DeForest, have felt it more appropriate to document these serious problems along with their genealogies, providing readers with a more complete understanding of what we would now call the "family history."
Prindle introduced the subject by discussing a Connecticut State Law that provides for sterilization of individuals who might "produce children with an inherited tendency to crime, insanity, feeble-mindedness, idiocy, or imbecility...", the implication being that William Tuttle's family was somewhat formally considered to be an example of the inheritance of undesirable character traits. Prindle then added (without personal commentary) the observation that William Tuttle also shared blood lines with many highly regarded persons, including the Rev. Timothy Edwards and Sir Winston Churchill, and pointed out that the Tuttle Genealogy had estimated that "at least four hundred, or one in twenty-five (graduates of yale University) are known to be of this lineage or affinity, and so of its professional schools (including two Yale Presidents)."
Writing a generation earlier than Prindle, Donald L. Jacobus had mentioned William Tuttle's family as an example in a chapter titled, "Genealogy and Eugenics." Jacobus presented evidence that so-called "defective" persons could produce offspring that were perfectly responsible and desirable citizens, and that well-meaning attempts at selective breeding among humans(eugenics) could therefore potentially do as much damage as good. He cautioned that, "There may be the risk that in eliminating an undesirable trait, a desirable trait linked with it may also "bred out'", and also offered the comforting thought that "I have concluded fro my own studies that in the long run nature eliminates the most degenerate human strains."
Our immediate interest is in the daughter Sarah, born in 1642 at new Haven. In 1660 (when she was 18 and still unmarried) she was called into New Haven court for "imodest, uncivell, wanton, lascivious manner" in her speech and behavior. Actually, all she was accused of was kissing another man in public (which she denied) and having some fresh words for a newly married couple about what they would do that night (which she did not deny). But she was found guilty and fined 20 shillings, the sentence later reduced by half at the request of her father.
Except for this questionable instance in New Haven, we have no evidence that Sarah Tuttle could have been considered unsociable or otherwise degenerate in any way. She married John Slason of Stamford in November 1663, moved back to Stamford with him and began her own family with four children being born to them by 1672. On 17 November 1676, Sarah's younger brother Benjamin Tuttle, age about 28 years, unmarried and living in the Slason household, went berserk about an hour and a half after dark and brutally murdered his sister with an ax in front of her own hearth and in full view of the Slason children. Benjamin confessed to the crime, was found guilty, and was executed by hanging at New Haven on 13 June 1677. the jury who made the original inquest at Stamford the night of the crime consisted of twelve respected male citizens of Stamford, including (at least) two other ancestors of William Weed: Henry Smith and Daniel Scofield. Writing to his friend the Rev. Increase Mather in April 1677, Stamford's pastor the Rev. John bishop reported, "An horrid murther committed among us, here at Stamford. A brother killing his own dear sister, "a very good woman that loved him dearly",...It was one Benjamin Tuttle...."
|TUTTLE, William (I57905)
||"Connecticut Ancestry": Young John Holmes died 6 July 1703 when he was helping to raise a new bell for the Stamford meetinghouse into place. When the bell was almost into its final position, the rope that was holding it gave way and the bell crashed to the floor, killing him instantly. His only child Jonathan Holmes, born on 21 May 1703 only 6 weeks before his father's death, was renamed John in his honor. ||HOLMES, John (I29419)
||"Crapo, Verna B. Verna B. Crapo Verna B. Crapo, 98, passed away April 16 at Copley Health Center. Funeral services will be held Saturday, 1 p.m. at the McGowan-Reid & Santos Funeral Home (at 3rd St., one block north of Portage Trail in the Falls). Interment at Crown Hill Cemetery. AN ANTHONY FUNERAL HOME"|
|BORLAND, Verna (I79619)
||"Deanna", Padelford Family History "Descendants of Jonathan Paddleford". ||Source (S02891)
||"DeMaranville Genealaogy": Legend says Louis DeMaranville was born in Paris, France, and was a young officer in the army, age 19. One morning while walking in the garden he saw his new step-mother punishing his little sister and becoming enranged pulled out his sward and knocked her bonnet off. To escape a worse punishment he was put on bord a war ship of which Francis Crapo was Captain. This vessel was wrecked off th shor of Cape Cod, and four men and the boy Peter Crapo were saved in a boaat said to have landed at Plymouth, Mass. The boy Peter Crapo about 12 years of age was bound out by his brother the Captain to Francis Coombs of Middleboro, Mass. No date is given of their coming but it was probably before 1700--A rhyme of the men's names I have heard repeated by descendants of the five families, was|
Louis Demaranville and Louis Voteau.
Old Peter Juckett and Francis Crapeau.
Peter Crapo buys land in Rochester, Mass. as early as 1703 and was married in 1704. At the time of this marriage Louis DeMaranville is said to make a vow that he would not marry until he could marry a daughter of Peter Crapo, which in 1730 he did, and is said to have had thirteen children, of several of which I find no mention. It is said that while waiting for his future wife to grow up that he cleared up an exceedingly nice farm for those days and built thereon a wall so wide that a yoke of oxen could be driven on top thereof, a portion of this wall is shown today on the old homestead near Braley's Station, in Dartmouth, Mass. It is said also that Louis named his first child Chaumont after the Duke of Chaumont. An old pewter porringer said to belong to Louis is yet shown and is in the hands of a descendant Mrs. Abbie J. Brooks of New Bedford, Mass.
A deed dated 1773 refers to Lois as lately deceased and while we do not know how old he was at his death, yet if our legend is true he must have been more than 100 years old, and it has been claimed 110. The family has been noted for its longevity, also for its musical and inventive abiltity.
It is not known how much truth there is in this legend, but this we do know that the men mentioned in the rhyme and the boy Peter Crapo were all in the town of Rochester and married before 1735 and therefore could not have been of the Arcadians (who were not driven out until after 1740) as has been alleged.
The spelling of the name has differed among many branches and often in the same family I find it DeMaranville, DeMoranville, Demeanvlle, Maranville, Moranvlle, and Ranville, and should be pronounced MeMaranville with each a, as in ran. I have made no attempt to show which each one uses, as I only use first and middle names in the following pages.....
|DEMARANVILLE, Louis (I18254)
||"DeMaranville Genealogy" by George Leander Randall. ||Source (S03885)