The Bartons' Early Years in Southold
Fleeing Long Island
The Fordham Ryotts
Roger Barton's 1688 Deed/Will
The Family of Roger Barton
Roger Barton's Life Timeline
TEXT FILE OF
Undertaken independently, this study was already nearing completion when it became possible to examine in detail the extensive Barton data contained in the papers of the late Adolph Law Voge, now deposited in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress. Though Mr. Voge ultimately hoped to publish a Barton genealogy, he was only partially successful in giving his material to the light in three brief forms: (1) an inconclusive note on the English ancestry (N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 60.40 f.); (2) the text of an address entitled "Roger Barton's Kinsmen", delivered in 1937 and available in mimeographed form in most genealogical libraries; and (3) contributions to a book bearing the same title, published in 1940 by Mrs. Margaret Alberta Barton McLean, of Magundy, York Co., New Brunswick. The papers reveal that Mr. Voge was particularly fortunate in gathering Barton material from unprinted official sources in southern New York and from family archives preserved by descendants, chiefly, but not entirely, in the same area. Not all of this information has by any means been included herein, and frequently Mr. Voge's conclusions are abandoned, sometimes silently. Pending completion of investigations now in progress or in prospect, it would be dangerous to say more about Roger Barton's English ancestors than to assert, with considerable conviction, that as yet no evidence having the slightest validity has been presented by anyone. Correspondence, with inquiry or contribution, is therefore earnestly invited. This article was completed in 1950 and galley proof read in the fall of 1951. This made it impossible to take into consideration the excellent article by Mr. Harry C. W. Melick's "The Fordham 'Ryott' of July 16, 1688", The New York Historical Society Quarterly, 36 (April, 1952), 210-220, but I do not now desire to change any other statements made concerning the riot.
1. ROGER(1) BARTON, the immigrant ancestor from whom this family descends, was probably born in England, and since on 17 July 1688 he testified under oath (Westchester Deeds A-269) that he was then "aged 60 or thereabouts", his birth took place about the year 1628. Though he is often identified with that Barton who on 14 Aug. 1642 signed a lease with the Rev. Everardus Bogardus for the sixty-two acres of the famous farm of Bogardus' wife Anneke Jans, this identification rests upon an error in indexing the still extant document, the real tenant having been Rufus Barton, as is shown in The American Genealogist, vol. 27, no. 3, July 1951, pp. 136-8, under the title of "Rufus Barton, not Roger, In Manhattan 1642".
The first undoubted record of our Roger Barton on this continent is to be found in the town records of Brookhaven, Long Island, where on 23 Oct. 1662 Roger Barton was one of four appointed to lay out the town. The name "Rog. Barton" is signed to a Brookhaven deed, as recorder, on 10 June 1664, and, again, "Rog. Bartones" signed with others a contract to build a mill on "10 mo.12, 1664" (12 Dec. 1664?). He may have been the earliest town clerk of Brookhaven which had been settled from Connecticut in 1655 and joined that colony in 1661. With three others, he is styled "Mr." in these records, a fact which suggests that he was a man of some importance, and his wife, as will appear, is designated as "Mrs. Barton", even in conjunction with another woman who is merely termed "goodwife Bloomer". On 25 April 1664 Roger was named deputy to the General Court and is probably the "Mr. Barton" made freeman of Connecticut at the General Assembly which met at Hartford on 12 May 1664 (Public Records of Connecticut [Hartford 1850], 1.428). On 23 Jan. 1664/5 he was appointed at Brookhaven one of six arbitrators; in the same year fined for absence, and named an appraiser. He purchased land in Brookhaven on 25 Feb. 1664/5; sold a meadow to Henry Perring at an unknown date; and other land to Francis Munsey and Wm. Satierly. In April 1665 he was again appointed one of the deputies to the General Court. Thus far, all the Brookhaven items concern Connecticut and not New York.
At a court, however, held on 31 Oct. 1665 in New York City, the defendant Abram Pietersen Corleyn, accused of selling strong beer to the Indians, gave as his excuse that "Mr. Borton" had given his oral assent thereto (New Amsterdam Records, 5.311). This may, as Mr. Voge believed, be our Roger Barton, for, with one other, Roger Barton was elected on 1 March 1665/6 to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (Fernow, Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 14.565) at a convention held at Hempstead at the call of Governor Richard Nicolls of New York when the East, West, and North Ridings of New Yorkshire were established and the Duke's Laws were put into effect on 11 March 1665/6.
If the reference by Corleyn is to our man, this may be evidence of growing unpopularity, for in May 1666 orders were given by Governor Nicolls for the arrest and expulsion of Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer from Brookhaven. The arrest appears to have been resisted, for on 22 May 1666 Governor Nicolls issued a commission to Messrs. Mathias Nicolls (no relation to Richard), William Wells, and Jonas Wood, "to Examine into the Riotous misdemeanors of some p[er]sons in Seatalcott". The commission makes clear that the constable had been hindered in the exercise of his duties by "some ill affected p[er]sons" who "did riotously Affront and Assault him, and wounded others who came to his Assistance, And withall, then and there (as also at severall other Times,) have given out and used evill words and speeches, tending to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the Peace of this Government". The three commissioners, who were, respectively, "Secretary of the Councell", "high Sheriffe of Yorkshire upon Long Islan[d]", and "Justice of the Peace of the East Riding", were to investigate the matter thoroughly, and were authorized to call before them Richard Odiell (Woodhull, not otherwise mentioned), Roger Barton, and Robert Bloomer, or any other persons.
Accordingly, the three commissioners conducted their investigation and "having taken vpon Oath severall Depositions wherein Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer are proved Guilty of severall Crimes tending to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the peace of this Government", Messrs. Nicolls and Wells issued a warrant to M[r]. Daniell Lane and Mr. John Tucker of Seatalcott for the arrest of Barton and Bloomer under date of 27 May 1666. An official proclamation outlawing the two men was issued on the 31st and on the next day Mathias Nicolls wrote to Lane and Tucker a letter in which he informed them that on that morning "Mrs. Barton" had presented the Governor "one Petition on behalfe of her selfe and Children, and another from Bloomers wife. The Governor informed her that he could do nothing for either woman until the expiration of the time limited in the proclamation for their husbands' coming in. Nicolls told his correspondents, however, that the Governor was pleased to permit them to "make use of any necessaryes, out of their Husbands Estates, for their, and their Childrens Subsistence". The women were to be used civilly, to be allowed to care for their property, but an account was to be rendered to prevent embezzlement.
The official proclamation outlawing the two men indicates that they, "being Conscious of their guilt, and apprehensive of the Punishmt their crimes may deserve", had "withdrawne themselves from their Habitations" and "are fled away". Thus far, we have been following the original record in the State Library at Albany. The two men probably escaped to Connecticut, leaving their families behind them, for there is a record that in 1666 the constable sold some of their household goods "to pay the charge of the Commissioners". A Court of Sessions, held at Southold (Brookhaven Records, 1.109) on 2-4 June 1669, repeats the same story and the Governor, Council, and Court now levied a fine of £50 through the sale or the estates, any residue to be returned for the relief of the families. Mrs. Barton had been required to pay £13/4 to the Commissioners, Goodwife Bloomer £13/10. Bloomer's property was sold by the Sheriff for £20, out of which he gave £12 to his wife Rachel, but nothing is said of what was done with Barton's land in Brookhaven. The whole controversy was doubtless a question of which colony should control Brookhaven. A letter of John Allyn, Secretary of Connecticut, to Governor Nicolls of New York, dated 1 Feb. 1664/5 (Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 3.88), refers to trouble at Seatalcott, perhaps earlier stages of the Barton-Bloomer difficulties.
It may be that Connecticut was the place of refuge to which the men fled, but the only record found which possibly connects Roger Barton with Connecticut after 1666 is contained in an allusion in the Minutes of the Hartford Town Meeting for 1677 (Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc., 6.183): "The Townsmen for thatt yeare were deptor by sum Cloath giune for the Towns vse by Squire Battaine 06-06-00, but this may be another man, even a different name.
It will have been noted above that in 1666 Roger Barton and his wife, her name unknown, had children, number not specified. The wife who suffered so nobly at Seatalcott was, for all we know to the contrary, the Mary Barton who survived Roger when he died about 1688 and was still living in Westchester with his sons Noah and Joseph in 1698. Her surname has not been recovered. A descendant states (Nat. Soc. Daughters of Founders and Patriots, 19.88), without documentation, that Mary was a Lounsberry. A correspondent has claimed that Mrs. Roger Barton was daughter of Richard Lounsbury of Rye who dated his will 2 June 1690, probated (Westchester Deeds, B-188) 24 Oct. 1694, and further, that the will refers to testator's daughter "Mary, wife of Roger Barton, deceased. The will does mention Mary but without reference to her being married or not, and it is known from the will of John Haddam of Westchester (Pelletreau, Westchester Wills, p. 391), probated in 1700, that Mary Lounsbury was the wife in 1700 of Israel Rogers. Mrs. Winifred Lovering Holman informs me that Richard Lounsbury, father of Mary Lounsbury Rogers, married by license, 1 Aug 1670, Elizabeth Penrye (Penoyer), who on 8 Jan. 1677/8 was recorded as aged 24, i.e., born in 1653 or thereabouts. A woman born in 1653, married at 17 in 1670, could hardly be the mother of another woman who as early as 1666 was the mother of at least two children. If Mary Barton was really a Lounsbury, we have no evidence of it, and she must have been daughter of some other Lounsbury than Richard of Rye. No record of the marriage of Roger Barton to Mary --- has been found in Connecticut or. New York, and the probability is that they were already married when they crossed the Atlantic. Mr. Voge has pointed out that though, except for an early connection with Connecticut, Roger Barton himself does not exhibit strong Puritan characteristics, the names of several of his sons do (Elisha, Elijah, Noah, and Enoch) and it may be that Mary Barton was of Puritan stock.
About 1670, it is said by Charles W. Baird ("History of Rye" [New York, 1871], pp. 52 f.) that Roger Barton acquired land at Rye Neck, then part of Connecticut, and gave it the name of Barton s Neck, i.e., "all the lands . . . [in 1871] . . . bordering on Grace Church Street, north of the road leading to Mamussing Island, as far as the brook and inlet above Dr. Sands' house, near to Port Chester . No Barton deeds for this area have been found in Westchester records and it is probable that, if extant, they lie hidden in some Connecticut archive. Whatever the truth about the period at Rye, Roger Barton purchased on 20 Nov 1678, from John Archer, first Lord of the Manor of Fordham, a tract of 102 acres "Iying near Brunxes River, commonly called the Great Plain, within the bounds of the said manor" together with a sixteenth part of the salt meadow and a share of fresh meadow adjoining the "Nursery Swamp". This land was assigned to Barton for various causes and more especially valuable considerations of money", but as a token payment signifying enfeoffment, Barton and his heirs and assigns were obligated to pay Archer and his heirs and assigns, every Shrove Tuesday, at the Manor House of Fordham, a fat hen. Similarly, at the same time (see Harry C. W. Melick, "The Manor of Fordham and Its Founder" [New York, 1950], pp. 92-4) Archer also sold similar tracts to Thomas Statham, John Conklin, Jeremiah Cannife, William Jones, Jonathan Hudson, and Nathaniel Stevens. According to Mr. Melick, Barton and Statham, at least, gave bonds to Archer, neither of which had been satisfied by 1688 (op. cit., pp. 114 f.).
Barton's deed for this transaction, not recorded until 2 Dec. 1700, long after the grantee's death (Westchester Deeds, C-68-70), contains the statement that Archer had permission of Cornelius Steenwyck to sell the property, and Steenwyck actually signed the Barton deed with Archer. The reason was, of course, the fact that at various times Archer had mortgaged the Manor to Steenwyck, the currently unsatisfied mortgage being dated 24 Nov. 1676 (Melick, op. cit., p. 88). At Archer's death (before 20 Nov. 1684) this mortgage was still unsatisfied, and on the last-named date, Steenwyck bequeathed his interest in the Manor; with the written consent of his wife (Margarieta de Riemer), to the Nether Dutch Reformed Church in Manhattan, the will being probated 8 May 1685. On 20 Oct. 1686, however, matters were further complicated by the fact that the widow Margarieta de Riemer Steenwyck married secondly, the Rev. Henricus Selyns, minister of that church which now was ultimately to gain title to the unsold part of the Manor of Fordham. As has been stated, Mr. Melick claims on the basis of the records now preserved in the Archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York, that Barton's bond was still unsatisfied on 30 Oct. 1688 (op. cit., pp. 114 f.), which is a very curious fact in the light of what we shall see a bit later.
Following the purchase of the 102 acres, the Barton family moved at once to Fordham -- there are no Bartons listed in Rye in 1683 (R. Bolton, "History of Westchester County", 2.139) -- and on 25 Dec. 1678 Roger Barton witnessed a land sale by William Davenport of Yonkers (C-353) and on 3 July 1682, when "at Westchester, New Yorkshire", he witnessed the sale of "jades" (horses) -- see N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 45.131, where the name is wrongly spelled "Bartow". On 4 July 1682 the Town of Westchester gave to Roger Barton, yeoman, "within the bounds of the aforesaid town, upon the west side of Brunxes River, one parcel of land where his dwelling house stands" (Westchester Town Records, 1.150). A curious statement, that! It is probably to be explained by the fact that by now, as described by Mr. Melick, the dispute between the Lord of the Manor of Fordham and the Town of Westchester, over ownership of the land on the west side of Brunxes River, had begun; that the town now claimed this part of the Manor land; that, in order to strengthen the town's inhabitants in their tenure of the property, the town now granted to Barton the very land which he had purchased from Archer in 1678. That this conclusion is the correct one will be shown when we come to discuss Roger Barton's final deed as grantor, for there the land he held of the Town of Westchester is described in such a way that it must be identical with the land he purchased from Archer.
Further references to Roger Barton appear in the Westchester Town Records. In November 1684 (1.150) houses to be built are mentioned, and one is located "between Roger Barton and the line of Col. Lewis Morris's [of Morrisania] at the side of the Brook by the South Pond". Roger Barton had witnessed a deed on 18 Oct 1684 (A-119), and on 6 Nov. 1684 he was one of five (others Capt. Richard Ponton, Joseph Palmer, John Hunt, and William Barnesj ordered by the Town of Westchester to visit "Spittin Debell" for the purpose of their meeting Philip Wells, a surveyor, who was to make a survey of the disputed lands (Melick, op. cit., pp. 109-11) Two years later Roger Barton was appointed by the Town Council as one of a committee of three to prevent unauthorized cutting of timber on the town lands (then claimed by Archer, of course) west of Brunxes River (Town Records, 1.3).
The dispute between the Town of Westchester and Archer became, as we have seen, after Archer's death, a dispute between the Town and the Dutch Church of Manhattan, and in the summer of 1688 grew quite heated. Some time between 25 May and 28 June 1688, probably in early June, two representatives of the Town of Westchester, Richard Ponton and Edward Waters, evicted Aert Peterse Buys and Reyer Michelsen, both tenants of the Manor of Fordham, the former for twenty years, from the properties they had held, and placed in possession Elisha and Elijah Barton, the two eldest sons of Roger. According to Mr. Melick (p. 113) the persons placed in possession were Roger and Elijah Barton. This is an error, due partly to the fact that when the Dutch learned of this act, they found Roger Barton on the premises, acting as locum tenens for his son Elijah, and partly to a not unnatural confusion of the two brothers who had very similar names. In any case, the error is not Mr. Melick's but his sources', and, as we shall see, the Westchester Court also made the same error, though correct testimony had been presented to it
ROGER BARTON'S 1688 DEED/WILL
This was the situation, then, when on 28 June 1688 Roger Barton made the deed which serves as his will, acknowledged before the court on 24 July 1688 as his own instrument and recorded on 25 July 1688 by Joseph Lee, Register, in Westchester Deeds, Liber A, p. 271 f.
Though a deed, as has been said, it has all the earmarks of a will, references to religion, to the "perfitt memory" of the grantor etc., and it provides a life interest for the wife. Moreover, it conveys, by different paragraphs, separate parcels of the grantor's estate, respectively' to three of the sons outright, to the wife for life and after her death to the other three sons. There can be no doubt that the grantor was contemplating death when he made the deed and that it actually served as a will.
Following the opening paragraph, allusion is made to the fact that the grantor is disposing of "all Such Temporall Estate as it is made to the fact hath pleased God Almighty to bestow upon me". Then come the specific conveyances:
"ffirst of all I give vnto my Son Elishah Barton a parcell of Land being twenty Pole in Width on the west side of the Land I hould of the Towne of Westchester the whole Length of the Tract is Cittuate and being on the East side of the Lott the Towne of Westchester aforesaid gave to Elishah Barton & one third part of the fresh meadow I bought of John Hadden, Senior.
"Secondly, I give vnto my Sonn Elijah Barton twenty two Pole wide to the East of Elishah Bartons Land Aforesaid to Runn the whole Length aforesaid [preceding word cancelled] of the said Land with one third part of the aforesaid Meadow.
"thirdly, I give vnto my son Roger Barton all that Tract or parcell of Land which was given mee by the ffreeholders and Inhabbitants of the Yonkers Plantation.
"fourthly, I give vnto my Deare & Loveing Wife Mary Barton all the rest of the said Tract of land I hold of the Towne of Westchester with all and Singular my Goods, Chattles, Leaces, personall Estate Whatsoever vtensils houshold stuff. Implements and things whatsoever of what nature, kind or property soever the:. same be or can be found within the Gouernment of New Yorke or elswheare with three acres of meadow on Longe Neck being the northmost meadow that is layd out by Bronx River, with the third part or Remainder of the fresh meadow afore Recited to my two sonns Elishah and Elijah for and dureing her natural Life to be at her dispose.
"And Imeadiately after her decease to be Eaqually shared betweene Noah Barton, Enoch Barton, and Joseph Barton and if any of the three should depart this naturall Life before that time before Exprest then to be Equally devided betweene the Survivers, Any of them to whom the house and Orchard doe happen to be their shaire is to pay yearely and Every yeare to the Treasurer of the Towne of Westchester one Bushell of Winter Wheat it being for Quitt Rent for the whole Tract I hold of the Towne of Westchester aforesaid".
There is a good deal more to the deed, but it says nothing not already expressed in the quotation above, and the deed ends with the following:
". . . I have putt the aforesaid Elishah & Elijah Roger & Mary my wife and after her decease Noah Enock & Joseph in full and Peacable Possession by the Giuft and delivery of one Silver drame Cupp unto my Loveing Wife the which I have given and delivered in the name of possession and seizen of all and Every of the Aforesaid Premisses".
The witnesses were Andrew Davis [signed by mark] and Joseph Lee, and the acknowledgement on 24 July 1688 was before John Palmer, Justice of the Peace & Quorum Comitt. Westchester, whom we shall meet again later.
On this deed the following comments should be made: (a) though the property granted to Elisha, Elijah, and Mary, would appear to be the Archer tract, otherwise unmentioned, it is, however, called a grant from the Town of Westchester; (b) the nature of the original grant was such as to require, still, the annual payment of a quit rent; (c) nothing is otherwise known of the purchase from Hadden or the grant from Yonkers Plantation; (d) though there is a presumption that, as Mr. Voge claimed, Noah, Enoch, and Joseph were still minors in 1688, that is not stated; (e) the Position of the wife's share is peculiar, and coming after those of the three eldest sons, may reflect the fact that she was a second wife, not their mother, but possibly mother of the three youngest sons who were to inherit her share. The making of this deed at this time seems to suggest, first, that the unsettled conditions created by the land dispute made it extremely desirable to take thought for the transfer of the property to the potential heirs before death itself came; and, secondly, that in the summer of 1688 the health of Roger Barton was such as to make him mindful of the need for leaving his affairs in order.
Between the time of the signing of the deed, however, and the acknowledging of it before the justice on 24 July 1688, matters came to a head. There is an extensive account of what happened on 16 July 1688 presented, from the Westchester Town point of view, in Westchester Deeds, Lib. A, pp. 265-70. For an account of the events from the point of view of the Dutch Church, we may cite Mr. Melick's excellent book already mentioned above (pp. 109-119), which is in turn based on a memorandum for Samuel Winder written by Nicholas Bayard, attorney for the Dutch Church, on 18 Nov. 1688, now in the archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York. Except for minor details, the two accounts are essentially harmonious.
From depositions given on 17 July 1688 before John Palmer, the justice of the peace of Westchester, we may piece together what had happened on the day preceding. The deponents and their ages were as follows: Roger Barton, Sr., aged about 60; Elisha Barton, aged about 20; Andrew Davis, aged about 22; Edward Hubbard, aged about 45; Robert Hudson, aged about 48; Thomas Statham, aged about 47; Jacob Vallentine, aged about 25; and Hendrick Verveale, aged about 20. As these depositions are in part repetitious, they may be summarized as follows:
The Dutch party who attempted to evict the Bartons seemed to most witnesses to be a "great company", the following being named as present in it: (1) Reyer Michelsen (name also spelled "Reyer Meceale", "Ryer Michaill", "Ryer Micele", "Richard Michaile"), son of Michaill Bastians, and one of those originally evicted by Ponton and Waters; (2) Hendrick Keirson (name spelled also "Kearse" and "Kerse"); (3) the unnamed wife of Keirson; (4) Nicholas Stuyvesant (so spelled in Melick's account but in the Westchester record he is "Stevenson" or "Stevanson" or "Stephenson"); (5) Tunis Decay; (6) Johannes Kipp; (7) Michaill Bastians, father of Reyer Michelsen; (8) the unnamed wife of Michaill Bastians; (9) Bastian Michailes, another son of Michaill Bastians; (10) Jacques Tourneur (so spelled by Melick, in Westchester records he is "Jacobb Turneare" or "Turneire"); and (11) Hannah Odle, wife of John Odle (Odell). Mr. Melick says there were others present, but their names are not recorded. Hendrick Verveale is in a peculiar position, for he is claimed by Mr. Melick as a Dutch partisan, but he also gave testimony the next day from the Westchester point of view -- perhaps he was taken prisoner and testified under duress, though there is nothing to suggest this.
The Dutch approached both houses, according to the testimony, at the same hour, "about 3 of the clock", but it would appear that they first attacked the house of Elijah Barton, then the house of Elisha Barton, after which the party returned to Elijah's house. Elijah Barton is not mentioned as present at his house and he did not testify the next day. Instead, his father Roger was there, inside, with the door locked. Whether Hendrick Verveale and Jacob Vallentine were also with him inside is not clear, though their testimony supports his. Roger was in the house "for to keepe possession in for & in behalfe of the Towne of Westchester" when
"there came a great company of men with Nicholas Bayard of New Yorke and with fforce & Armes did Assault the Deponant [Roger Barton, Sr.] And break open the doore of the house and hailed the deponent out And one of the Company by name Tunis Decay punched him with his Elboes and some of the Company Cryed kick him on the breech & others Cryed disarme him and send him away. And what they did in the house Afterwards ye Deponant Knoweth not".
Verveale testified that Roger looked out of the window and said to Nicholas Stephenson:
"Keepe of[f], who had a great Pole in his hand which he pulled out of the fence and forced the doore therewith intending to breake it open but Could not doe it where vpon Tunis Decay Came Vp to the Said Stevanson and tooke the pole out of his hand & went to Nicholas Bayard and Asked Libertie of him if he might breake open the doore Wherevpon the said Bayard replyed Yes, I give you Liberty & the said Tunis with force & Armes did breake open the doore and the said Roger with all his might shutt ye doore againe, wherevpon Johannes Kipp did break the doore open againe and did Enter the house first and Tunis Decay & Johannes Kipp haled the said Roger out of the house and some of the Company cryed Kick him, Kick him [note Verveale's use of fastidious language] and Also Cryed disarme him, disarme him".
Vallentine merely deposed that he saw Kipp enter the house and "haled Roger out & tooke his Pitchforke from him and bad[e him begone". Roger's testimony continues:
"Afterwards as he was goeing homwards there came one of the Company with a sword [Decay ?] & would not lett him pass alonge the high way but with force & Armes did Turne him back againe whereby the deponent was forced to take another way through the woods for feare of being waylaid againe". ,
Obviously, Roger Barton was not then living with his son Elijah but elsewhere.
Having successfully vanquished an old man armed only with a pitchfork, the Dutch party then appear to have moved quickly on to Elisha Barton's house, formerly occupied by Reyer Michelsen, where they found Elisha and Andrew Davis within. Here Richard Michaile (the former occupant) and Tunis Decay broke open the locked door and evicted both men. Further, "in breakeing open the core ye core flew open and hitt the deponent [Elisha] on ye Left Eye and hurt very soore & Afterwards they Locked the doore on ye inside and Crept out of the window".
The fracas at Elijah Barton's house created sufficient noise to attract attention at Westchester Town, for Edward Hubbard was sent by some of the trustees of the Town
"for to See what Tumult it was which was at Elijah Bartons house & for to keepe possession for & in behalfe of the Towne And the deponent [Hubbard] came to the house and found no doore thereon & Severall Pallasadoes broke downe from the side of the sd house but found no body & about halfe an houre After, there came a great Company of men, with Nicholas Bayard to said house and Nicholas Bayard came to the deponent and Said what doe you here and the deponent, replyed that he was keepeing of possession for & in behalfe of the Towne of Westchester, where vpon the said Bayard bid him be gone or Else he would sett him goeing, and the company fell vpon him & held him by the haire of the head and the shoulders & kicked him. Tunis Decay Drew his sword at him".
At this juncture, Thomas Statham and Robert Hudson happened along that way, en route, as they said, to Vallentine Clauson's [Clawson's] house "about their owne ocations" "Hudson], "about their owne bussines" [Statham]. Statham suddenly heard a great noise and said to Hudson: "put on Robert for yonder I heare a great Crying out [Hudson says he said "gapeing"] as if some body was hurt". They then both
"putt on & when they Came to the house where Aert Peterson [Buys, one of the two evicted originally by Ponton and Waters] formerly Lived he & the said Robert Saw a great Company of men & Nicholas Bayard of New Yorke with them & some of the Company kicking and abuseing Edward Hubard & pulling and haleing him out of the yard over the fence into the streete & the Deponant Asked what is here to do are the[y] killing or murdering of a man where vpon Nicholas Bayard came towards ye Deponant and said, who is thow Mr. Statham yes Replyed ye deponent I am Thomas Statham where vpon the said Bayard Enquired of ye deponent & said what have you to do here gett you about your bussines & the deponant replyed & said he was in the Knig's [sic] high way about his bussines & further the said Bayard demanded of the deponent whose land that was & the Deponant replyed westchester for ought he knew & part of it his owne by vertyo of his purchase [from John Archer in 1678] where vpon Byard threatoned the deponent and gave him Scurrelous Language and said it should be worse for him and yt he was a deceitfull fellow & hat better beene at home About his bussines''.
Hudson's testimony is substantially the same, but adds the detail that while Hubbard was being abused, Bayard turned his back on the scene and then denied it was happening.
Naturally, the Westchester partisans lost no time in seeking legal protection. The testimony summarized above was taken by the Justice, John Palmer, on the seventeenth, and on the twentieth, the Sheriff, Benjamin Collier, had been given a precept to arrest Ryer Michele "with the rest of the said Com[plices?] aforesaid or Any of them wheresoeuer they may be found within your Baylywick", which responsibility he passed on, after the manner of superiors, to Mr. Richard Headly "as my Deputy", but no arrests were made, doubtless because the Dutch party were careful to keep out of reach for the present.
On the 31st there was held an "Enquirey of a Ryott and force Entry &c Lately made in said [Westchester] County" before "John Palmer Esqe & Wm Richardson Esqe, both Justices of the Peace in Corum & Benjamin Collier, Esqe, High Sherrife of Said County with his vnder Sherrife &c". A jury of 24 "good & Lawfull men of the Baylywick" was impannelled, as follows: Jno Drake, Richard Suite [Sweet?], Moses Hoyte Sr., Ebenezer Jones, Thomas Sherwood, Thomas Pinckney, Robert Bloomer Sr. [fellow fugitive of Roger Barton from Brookhaven], James Mott [foreman], Henry Disbrow Sr., Jno Nellson, Stephen Sherwood Sr., Hackaliah Browne, Timothy Knapp, John ffrost, Jno Miller Sr., Cornelius Seeley, Joshua Webb, Zackeriah Webb, Joseph Jones, John Griffin, Joseph Boyles, William Gray, and Nicholas Bayley.
Being given the testimony, the jury brought in the following verdict:
"The Jury being 24 men finds the Cause yt was brought before them to be a Ryott, & force Entry made in said County the 16th Instant by Ryer Michaile Henrick Keirse and others & vpon and at the houses of Elijah Barton Roger Barton and Edward Hubbard within said County".
Note that the jury had been inattentive to the testimony: nothing had been said about Edward Hubbard's or Roger Barton's houses. Whereupon the two justices gave judgment to the same and ordered it to be recorded in the County records, as it was duly recorded by the Register, Joseph Lee, on 3 Aug. 1688.
Though Westchester justice had reinstated the Bartons in the two houses, their claim ultimately had to be abandoned, for the trustees of the Town of Westchester were finally induced by the Dutch Church to sign a quitclaim deed on 23 Oct. 1693, surrendering their rights to the land within the Manor of Fordham. Mr. Melick, who presents the story (op. cit., p. 117), misunderstands the Roger Barton who signed this deed as witness -- the only witness from the Westchester side -- to be Roger-1 Barton, but it is almost certain that it was rather Roger-2 Barton, since there is reasonably good probability that Roger-1 Barton did not long survive the events of July 1688. An attempt to examine this signature to determine whether it is that of an old man or a relatively young one, not a conclusive point, of course, has been unsuccessful, owing to the fact that the original seems to have been mislaid in the archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York. In any case, this quitclaim deed would have no bearing on the title to the plot bought by Roger Barton in 1678, providing that the bond was satisfied. The Dutch record seems to imply that it was not yet satisfied in 1688, but Roger-2 Barton sold a 102-acre farm in the Manor of Fordham on 9 June 1694, to, of all people, Roger Michelsen! See Westchester Deeds in Comptroller's Office, New York, Liber 56, p. 206. This does not, however, quite settle the matter, for it is possible that this sale was only an apparent sale and that Roger-2 Barton was forced to sell, in order to clear himself and his family of the unsatisfied bond of 1678.
It should be noted that Mr. Voge seems to have misunderstood the events of 16 July 1688 to be an attack of partisans of the Dutch Church of Manhattan upon the Anglican Church of Westchester, but there is no question of involvement of a Westchester church in the record.
When Roger-1 Barton died is not certain. He is last known to be living at the acknowledgment of the deed on 24 July 1688. He does not appear in the 1698 Census of Westchester when his widow Mary and sons Noah and Joseph do appear. In the deed-will of 1688 the six sons are called children, not sons; so there would seem to be no question of Roger's having previously provided for any daughters, and, indeed, there are no deeds recorded to show that he did care for any possible daughters.
Mention should be made here, however, of a William Barton who was in December 1693 on the Petty Jury of the Court of Sessions (Dixon Ryan Fox, Minutes of the Court of Sessions, p. 84) when he was of Westchester Town. He cannot therefore have been a son of Roger Barton who died vita patris. On 20 July 1696, a William Barton, probably the same, was licensed to marry Hannah Hull only daughter and heiress of Humphrey Hull, vintner, of New York who died intestate in 1689 (N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 3.93). Letters of administration had been granted on Hull's estate to Colonel Caleb Heathcote, attorney for Jane Spencer, widow of Edward, principal creditor of Hull, and an inventory of the estate was made on 18 June 1689 amounting to a total of £984 (Coll. N.Y. Hist. Soc., 25.271, 287). Hull had bought land from Samuel Gibson and wife Lideah, an acre at Perth Amboy (Trenton Deeds F-37, N.J. Arch., first series, 21.267; Monnette, "First Settlers of Piscataway and Woodbridge, 2.157). On 22 Nov. 1699, Hannah Barton, now a widow sold the same property to John Ellison, of New York, merchant, N.J. Arch., first series, 21.299 ff.). Monnette also speaks of a grant in 1699 to Barton by the New Jersey Proprietors (loc. cit. 6.1064, 1145). This William Barton cannot have been a son of Roger-1 Barton but he may have been a nephew.
Children, birthplaces unknown:
2. i. ELISHA-2, b. about 1662.
ii. ELIJAH, b. probably in Brookhaven, Long Island, about 1664, d. before 1717, without issue surviving then.
He is named as second son in the conveyance of 28 June 1688 which served as his father's will. By 16 July 1688 he had also been installed in possession of a house, that formerly occupied by Aert Petersen Buys, by the Town of Westchester, but on that day he did not defend it in person (see above). This does not imply, necessarily, that he was already married. He was probably absent on military duty, his father defending the property in his stead. In March 1686 he witnessed a sale in Westchester (A-67 f., by mark, "Alligah"). The Westchester Town Minutes, 1.12, record a vote to give him the first lot on the west side of Brunkes River in return for paying arrears due William Richardson (see Riker's History of Harlem", p. 308).
It was long the belief of Mr. Voge that about 1700 Elijah removed to Hempstead, Long Island, and became the ancestor of the Hempstead Bartons, but no evidence has been found to support this conjecture, and what evidence there is for these Bartons suggests that the earliest Elijah Barton at Hempstead was, rather, Elijah-3 (Joseph-2). In any case there is very strong evidence to support the view that Elijah-2 was in 1717 already dead without surviving issue. The Province of New York (Colonial Laws of New York, 1.938, 964 f.) by An Act for Paying & Discharging Several Debts, passed on 23 Dec. 1717, credited "Elisa Barton" with military service performed at the fort at Albany under Capt Jochim Staats in the years 1689 and 1690, and awarded, not to the veteran himself, but to "Noah Barton, his Exce'rs or Assigns, to be equally divided among the Brethern of Elisa Barton" the sum of twenty-three ounces Seven penny-wt & a halfe of Plate". Both the text of the bill and the index give the first name as above, but it is probable that this is a misreading of "Elija" without the final letter. [1 have not examined the original but have seen other manuscript examples of this name which might easily be misread by the unwary as ''Elisa''] That the name should not be read as ''Elisthla'' is, I think, proved by Elisha's presence at Westchester in July 1688 and Elijah's absence, coupled with the fact that Elisha appears to have had surviving issue, as the veteran did not.
Mr. Voge was also of the opinion that Elijah-2 Barton was father of Hannah, wife and widow of Edward Tompkins, Manor of Scarsdale, whose will was dated 28 Feb. 1717/18 and probated 9 Jan. 1719/20. Tompkins had the following children, several of the names of whom suggest Barton relationship: Edmund, Obadiah, Mary, John, Elijah, Caleb, Roger, Joseph, Susanna, and Jane, while Noah-2 Barton was, with Jonathan Odell and the widow, named as executor. But the first three children were of age in 1718/19, and so must have been born before 1698. That puts the birth of the eldest at least as early as 1695 when Elijah Barton was only thirty-one, too young to be a grandfather, and the objection that Elijah had no issue surviving the year 1717 also confirms this conclusion.
3. iii. ROGER, b. about 1666.
4. iv. NOAH, b. about 1668.
v. ENOCH, b. about 1669, unknown unless he is the man of same name who d. between 1 July and 15 July 1700, in Salem County, N. J., leaving a noncupative will with heir and administrator one Thomas Lambson. That Enoch was a "cordwider".
5. JOSEPH-2 BARTON (Roger-1), youngest son, was probably born at Rye. Since the three youngest sons were all almost certainly minors on 24 June 1688, we reach a terminus post quem for his birth of about 1669, and as he took the oath against Catholicism on 31 Jan. 1698/9, he must have been born in 1677 or before. Mr. Voge, and, following him, Mrs. Margaret Alberta Barton McLean, in her book, "Roger Barton's Kinsmen" (1940), p. 19, both date the birth in 1672, which though probably a guess, is a reasonable one. Dr. Joshua Lindley Barton (N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 59.239) gives the year as 1684, for what reason I do not know, but this is surely too late. In the Voge Papers the year 1672 is crossed out in pencil and 1684 substituted for it. The attempt to bring the birth down as late as possible is doubtless due to a feeling that Joseph's death in 1762, and, even more, the relatively late dates of birth of some of his children, indicate a man born later than 1672, and, indeed, I have seen a suggestion that the data here presented as of one man really belong to two. The Bartons in many instances, however, were procreative at advanced ages, and the signature on Joseph's will is so weak that it confirms the impression that it was made by a man extremely old. Moreover, there were grandchildren as early as 1730.
Joseph is not mentioned in the account of the riot of 16 July 1688, but is named in the deed of 24 June 1688, and appears in the Westchester Census of 1698 with his brother Noah and the widow Mary Barton. There was a Westchester purchase of land on 18 March 1701/2, the grantors being Sarah and Nicholas Conklin of Eastchester, and the property specified as a house, lot, and orchard (C-99). This purchase is rather difficult to explain, for he had already purchased from Samuel Millis on 7 Feb. 1701/2, recorded 22 Dec. 1703 (Queens Deeds, B2-16), land on Long Island, and he did actually move to Jamaica, where he is mentioned as a resident in a deed dated 8 Sept. 1702 and in another dated 5 Sept. 1707. In 1706 he sold land to Jonathan Whitehead (Queens, B2-167) and in 1707 bought 14 acres in Newtown with Thomas Smith (C-58). In 1707 he witnessed the will of Richard Valbee, commander of the sloop Content, then dangerously wounded, but this will was not probated until 1710. Joseph Barton's name appears on two tax lists for Jamaica in the years 1708-9, once assessed £2/3 and two wampons, the other time £3/4/2 and four wampons. He also witnessed the will of Stephen Burrowes, saddler, of Jamaica, 13 July 1713, probated 8 Dec. 1714 (N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 65.321). There are, besides, two deeds (Queens, B2-482 and B-482), both dated 6 June 1710 and recorded 28 June 1710, Jonathan Everitt to Joseph Barton.
At the Jamaica Town Meeting of 7 April 1713 it was votted as aforesaid that Joseph Bartain shall have liberty to sett up a good, a ufishent pound, sixty foot in length and forty foot in breath, with pertion in ye same at his own discrestion, between ye cros way by Wait Smith and Thomas Smith westward, with a mounth time, he recevfing ye yousall fees that has been pratiscall in time past; he, ye said Bartin, to pay into ye hands of ye Clerk of ye Town ye sume one pound, one shilling & sixpence per year; he, ye sd clerk, being accountable to the Town for ye same; this is to be for ye space of seven years insueing the date hereof".
When the term had run only four years, the Town Meeting of 2 April 1717 "voted that Joseph Barten is quited from paying any rent for ye benefit by the pound hereafter" and also "that ye said Barton is to keep a good, sufficient pound for ye Town for three years, the tume he had taken it for, he taking ye yousall fees for ye futter".
For some reason he was not re-elected -- perhaps he was not a candidate -- at the meeting of 5 April 1720, on which day Daniel Bull was installed to replace him on much the same terms (Josephine C. Frost, Records of the Town of Jamaica [Brooklyn, 1914], 2.147, 428, 439, 442; 3.419, 433, 436). Again, on 14 June 1715, Joseph Barton bought land in Queens (C-58), and this time he is described as a carpenter.
Joseph Barton was twice married. His first wife was RACHEL, surname not recovered. It has been said that she was a Gale, a member of a well-known Jamaica family, but this must be a mistake for Rachel Gale, the second wife of Dr. Leonard-4 Barton (Dr. Lewis-3, Joseph-2). The Voge Papers contain the statement, followed also by Mrs. McLean (op. cit., p. 19), that Rachel was a Lewis, probably a sister of the second wife, but I have found no evidence for this. Attempts to identify Rachel with some unmarried woman appearing in the 1698 Censuses of Westchester County have failed. Robert Bloomer, companion of Roger-1 Barton in his flight from Brookhaven in 1666 (see above), had a wife named Rachel, but they appear not to have had a daughter of that name, nor did Joseph Barton name any of his sons Robert, though his son Thomas-3 Barton did appoint Gilbert-3 Bloomer (Robert-2 Robert-1) as one of his executors. The death of Rachel Barton is sometimes dated in 1712, upon what evidence I do not know. She was surely dead by 1717, for on 5 May 1717 Joseph Barton married, by license, at Grace Church, Jamaica, his second wife ABIGAIL LEWIS
She has been identified by descendants (Lloyd Espenschied of Kew Gardens and Ralph E. Boyce of Queens Village, to both of whom this study is much indebted) as Abigail-4 Lewis, baptized at the Center Church, Hartford, on 8 April 1692, daughter of Philip-3 Lewis (William-2 William-1) and of his wife Sarah Ashley, daughter of Robert-1 Ashley and wife Mary, previously wife of one of the several Thomas Hortons.
There is inherently no objection to this identification, but it has not been proved, Jamaica records being notoriously unsatisfactory for the period. There were, however, male Lewises in Jamaica, and it may be that Abigail was related to Leonard Lewis, of New York City and Dutchess County, who died on 19 Aug. 1730, leaving a will dated 28 Feb. 1723/4. He married Elizabeth Hardenbergh (see Lewisiana, 7.27; 10.93; 12.28), and had a son Barrent, a name which reappears once among Joseph Barton descendants.
In the year following the marriage of Joseph and Abigail, their first child, Thomas, was born; he was baptized, together with his half-brother John and half-sister Mary, children of Rachel, at Grace Church on 19 Oct. 1718. Be cause only two children are in this entry credited to Rachel, it has generally been assumed that that is all Rachel had, but the assumption is not valid. How many of the thirteen children of Joseph were by each wife cannot now be determined, since we do not know what position was held by the son Thomas who was Abigail's eldest. Only one other child was baptized at Grace Church, according to the record there, namely, Lewis, who was christened on 8 May 1726. Thus, only four of the children were recorded in baptismal registers now extant. Perhaps some were baptized at Scarsdale, the registers of which have perished.
In any case, on 17 March 1721/2, Joseph Taylor of Scarsdale, yeoman, and Mary, his wife, deeded to Joseph Barton of Jamaica, carpenter, land near Hutchinson's River in Westchester County on the east side of Bronx River (F-348, N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 52.325, wrongly dated 1727), and presumably the Barton family thereupon removed to Scarsdale, where they lived until 1731. Joseph Barton was a Vestryman at the Rye Church in 1727 (Vestry Book, p. 40), and, when of Scarsdale, he and wife Abigail, who could write, sold their property to Jonathan Peasley for £245 on 4 Dec. 1731 (F-351, recorded 22 Jan. 1731/2). Barton's land at Scarsdale is also mentioned in a 1729 deed description (G-17 f.). Following the sale of the Scarsdale property, the family removed to Greenwich, Conn., where the home was probably at the neighboring hamlet of Horseneck, later, I am told, West Greenwich. There in 1738 Joseph Barton signed a petition of Greenwich Episcopalians, praying the legislature to relieve them of the obligation of paying taxes for the support of the established Congregationalist Church. The petition was, of course, denied. The name of Joseph Barton also appears on tax lists at Greenwich for the years 1734 to 1744.
In 1743 Joseph Barton, Sr., then of Greenwich, was appointed one of the executors of his son Thomas's will dated 5 Sept. 1743. In the same year, Joseph Barton "of the County of fairfield & Collony of Connectecott" purchased from Isaac Reynolds "of Filkentown in Dutchess County in Crum Elbo Presinct" (in the text of the deed, Poughkeepsie 6.14, the name is misspelled "Runnels" but the signature of Isaac is clear) a farm of 108 acres for a consideration of £100. This farm is identified in the deed in terms of the map of the Nine Partners Grant, subdivision lot no. 25. The latter was one of the subdivisions originally extending from about the present Milbrook eastward four miles and northward a mile plus. Somewhere in the vicinity of Filkentown Joseph now settled, for the last time, with those of his family who had not either died or fared forth. The hamlet, now called Washington Hollow, was in Crum Elbow Precinct, then in Charlotte Precinct, before the death of Joseph in 1762, then apparently in Clinton, and now in Pleasant Valley. Here in 1747 there was started the "Presbeterian meeting house near Henry Filkins of Charlotte Precinct". Joseph Barton, though hitherto a good Anglican, was no narrow sectarian, and appears to have been one of the committee to advocate the building of the church, and when the land was acquired, he became one of the trustees -- in fact, he purchased the land from Isaac Germond, Jr., and wife, Catherine, on 8 July 1747. Then a committee "agreed with Joseph Barton Esqr. to build the frame of the Presbeterian meeting house and are to give him 25 pounds". The church lands (Poughkeepsie Deeds, 2.103) lay in Great Nine Partners Lot No. 7, on both sides of the "highway", on what appears to be the present Route 44, "that leads from Henry Filkin Sherif to Filkintown". The church and burial yard are stated to be "for the use of all and Every other the Freeholders and Inhabitants of and in Cromelbow Precinct aforesaid, their heirs and assigns, being of the presbeterrian persuasion . . . to Worship God According to the Rules and Method now used in the Kirk of Scotland as also to and for the use of a Dutch Congregation four Sundays in Each Year forever . . . and for the use of a Burial Yard. . . .'
In the remaining years of his long life, Joseph Barton is recorded several times in the Dutchess County Archives (F.D. Roosevelt, Coll. Dutchess County Hist. Soc., 7.3, 12 24, 25, 28-30, 55). He was elected assessor and overseer of the poor at the Town Meeting of 5 April 1748, and, though aged, constable for the precinct on 6 April 1756, and was reelected in 1757 and 1759. On 2 mo. 9, 1748, he signed a power of attorney, as justice of the peace, and in the same capacity probated the will of Hendricus Heermanse of Rhinebeck, dated 20 March 1750, probated 15 Oct. 1750. The will of Samuel Carpenter of Northcastle (Coll. N.Y. Hist. Soc, 29.19), dated 2 June 1754, probated 25 June 1754, mentions a debt of £56 owed him by "Joseph Barton of the Nine Partners in Dutchess Co.", which may be either Joseph-2 or his son Joseph-3, since both are listed as taxpayers in Dutchess in 1746.
Joseph-2 Barton dated his will, the only one made by any son of Roger-1 Barton, on 20 April 1762 in Charlotte Precinct, and it was probated on 28 Sept. 1762. The witnesses were Nathaniel Marshall, Ephram Palmer, and Wm Doughty; the executors: sons Lewis and Caleb. The actual will is still extant in Albany and shows that the widow survived, though she is not named. The following bequests are made in this order: to grandson Joseph Barton, son of Benjamin Barton (not expressly stated to be dead), ten shillings; to sons Elijah (Eligey), William, Joseph, Lewis, Caleb, Roger, and daughter Millicent (Millison), five shillings each; to daughter Sarah, five pounds; to daughter Rachel, twenty pounds; to the well-beloved wife, fifteen pounds, the best bed and furniture, and one cow; the residue to be divided equally between son Roger and the three daughters. Relatively elaborate provisions permitting executors to proceed suggest considerable property, but this may be illusory. Children not named include Thomas, known to have died in 1743, John and Mary, children of the first wife, presumably dead. The reference to Benjamin without even a nominal bequest, coupled with the bequest to his son of ten shillings "In lue of his Berth Rite", indicates that Benjamin was the eldest son then dead and that Joseph-4 was his eldest son surviving.
In the following list an attempt has been made to reach chronological order; but this is impossible, since there are some children whose mother cannot be determined.
12. i. BENJAMIN-3
ii. JOHN, bapt. 19 Oct. 1718, probably d. before 20 April 1762, as he is not mentioned in his father's will. He may have been the Jno Barton, private in Capt. Elihu Hall's Company, Col. Elisha Williams' Foot Regiment, 25 Aug. to 21 Oct. 1747 (Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc., 15.157). Mr. Voge identified our John Barton with the signer of an association oath in Amenia in 1775 (Reed, Hist. of Amenia, 56) and with the "John Bartoc", of Dutchess, who' according to a manuscript note he found at the N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Soc., m. on 18 March 1772 Zilpah Knap of Oblong.
iii. MARY, bapt. 19 Oct. 1718; not mentioned in her father's will of 20 April 1762.
iv. RACHEL, living 20 April 1762. That no husband is named in her father's will does not prove her unmarried in 1762, since her two sisters were married but their husbands are not mentioned. She was named in 1743 a potential heiress of her brother or half brother Thomas, in case one of his daughters preceded him in death, as neither did. Though named last of the daughters in the will, she was probably a child of her namesake, the first wife
vi. THOMAS, eldest son by the second wife Abigail Lewis, bapt. at Grace Church, Jamaica, 19 Oct. 1718, when an infant; d. between 5 Sept. and 17 Sept. 1743, a resident of Rye; m. MARGARET ---, who survived him. He was at times confused by Mr. Voge with Thomas-3 (Elisha-2). His will (Coll. N.Y. Hlst. Soc., 27.402 f.) mentions also his two daughters, two of his brothers (William and Joseph) and his sister Rachel, and names as executors his father Joseph-2 Barton, Sr., of Greenwich, and Gilbert Bloomer; witnesses: John Odell and Joseph Barton, Jr. He left tableware marked with Initials, "A. V. H." which suggest that Margaret was descended from some one with these initials, e.g., as R. B. Miller, cited by Mr. Voge, thought, some one who might have been Abigail Van Haight. The Widow Barton's property is mentioned in the Receipt and Highway Book of Westchester under date of 20 Oct 1753. On 28 March 1763, she bought land at Rye (1-224), made a mortgage on 13 July 1769, not satisfied until 1809 (Mortgage Book B-114). She again bought land in 1784, made her will when "a little out of order in bodily health" on 17 Dec. 1791, probated 3 Oct. 1803 (C-204).
1. HANNAH-4, b. before 1743; d. unm., and bur at St. Paul's, Eastchester, 29 Nov. 1824.
2. PHEBE, b. before 1743, sold holdings in Rye 7 Aug. 1829 and removed to Greenwich, Conn. (Town Deeds, 38.171).
14. vii. WILLIAM.
viii. JOSEPH, b. in 1722 or earlier; living 20 April 1762. On 5 Sept. 1743 he witnessed the will of his brother or half brother Thomas. On 14 June 1744, when of Horseneck, he enrolled as a private in the Connecticut Militia for service in King George's War (1744-48). He appears on Dutchess tax lists in 1746-48 and in Francis Filkins' account books for the same years. No further record can be proved, but he was definitely not the Joseph Barton of Sussex County, N. J., who became a loyalist lieutenant colonel, contrary to what both Mr. Voge and I long thought.
15. ix. LEWIS, b. about 1725.
16. x. CALEB, b. about 1725.
xi. MILLICENT, almost certainly daughter of the second wife Abigail Lewis, b. probably in Scarsdale Manor about 1722, d. between 2 Sept. 1803 and 14 Jan. 1804; m. probably in Greenwich, Conn., about 1740, DAVID HUESTED (David-4, Joseph-3, Angel-2, Robert-1), b. in Greenwich 7 Aug. 1719, d. in Washington, Dutchess Co., between 21 May and 25 June 1787, brother of the wife of Dr. Lewis Barton. David and Millicent (Barton) Huested both left wills. They moved from Greenwich about 1743 to the present Town of Washington.
Children surname HUESTED, order uncertain:
1. DAVID, Revolutionary officer, b. 1 Feb. 1741; d. about 1835; m. Patience Palmer.
2. LEWIS, b. about 1746; d. in 1823, m. Mary Mills.
3. TITUS, born about 1752; bapt. at Poughkeepsie-Rumbout Church 10 July 1757; d. in 1834; m. (1) Amy ---; m. (2) Phoebe ---
4. EUNICE, m. before 21 May 1787 --- Gould.
5. AMOS, bapt. at Poughkeepsie-Rumbout Church 10 July 1757 d. before 21 May 1787.
6. ANANIAS, b. about 1756; d. in 1829; m. Susanna Boyce.
7. ABRAHAM, b. about 1760; m. Sarah Palmer.
8. SARAH, b. 9 Aug. 1762, d. before 1829, m. Ebenezer Boyce
9. RUTH, m. 24 April 1783 Caril or Camel [Campbell ?] Mosher
10. REUBEN b. 14 Nov. 1767; d. 14 April 1850; .m. (1) Freelove Howland; m. (2) Elizabeth Tyrrel.
xii. SARAH, certainly daughter of the second wife Abigail Lewis, b probably in Scarsdale Manor about 1730 or a little earlier, d. between 15 April 1776, when her youngest child was born, and 30 Dec. 1795, when her husband mentioned another wife; m. 6 Nov. 1747 ZACHARIAH-2 FLAGLER (Zachariah-1) (Flageler or Vlegelaar), b. about 1720, d. in Clinton, Dutchess Co., 27 July 1807.
Children, surname FLAGLER:
1. Elizabeth, b. 16 Jan. 1748/9; d. before 6 Feb. 1764.
2. Sarah, b. 30 Sept. 1750/1; d. 15 Feb. 1825; m. John Van Wagner.
3. David, b. 17 July 1752; d. after 1795; m. Hilletje Peel.
4. Barton, b. 23 June 1754; d. before 10 Jan. 1766.
5. William, b. 6 Nov. 1755; living in 1795.
6. Zachariah, b. 18 Dec. 1757; probably d. before 1795.
7. Solomon, b. 8 May 1760; d. 24 Nov 1839; m. (1) Ester Ostrom; m. (2) Martha ---
8. Margaret, b. 11 March 1764; m. Samuel Rannels (Reynolds ?).
9. Elizabeth, b. 6 Feb. 1764, unm. in 1795
10. Barton, b. 10 Jan. 1766; m. Hannah, probably Ostrom.
17. xiii. ROGER, b. about 1730.
TIMELINE OF THE LIFE OF ROGER BARTON (1628-1688)
approx. 1628 - Roger Barton's birth probably in England
1661 - earliest town clerk of Brookhaven, settled from Connecticut in 1655 (signs his name Mr.)
23 Oct 1662 - appointed 1 of 4 to lay out the town of Brookhaven, Long Island
25 Apr 1664 - deputy to General Court
12 May 1664 - probably the "Mr. Barton" made freeman (Public Records of CT [Hartford 1850], 1.428)
10 Jun 1664 - signed deed as recorder in Brookhaven, Long Island
10m 12, 1664 - signed contract (with others) to build a mill
23 Jan 1664/5 - appointed arbitrator, appraiser
1 Feb 1664/5 - letter from John Allyn to Governor mentions "trouble in Seatalcott
25 Feb 1664/5 - purchased land in Brookhaven
1 Mar 1665/6 - elected to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (Fernow, Docs. Rel. Col. Hit. of NY, 14.565)
Apr 1665 - appointed deputy to General Court
31 Oct 1665 - Abram Corleyn testified "Mr. Borton" had given oral assent to him selling strong beer to Indians (New Amsterdam Records, 5.311)
27 May 1666 - Governor orders arrest and expulsion of Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer who flee from Brookhaven (possibly to Connecticut) leaving their families behind
2-4 Jun 1669 - Court of Sessions at Southold, fines levied, estate sold, etc.
Abt 1670 - acquired land at Rye Neck (now Westchester Co., NY but then Connecticut) called Barton's Neck - bordering on Grace Church St., north of road to Mamussing Island, near Port Chester
20 Nov 1678 - bought 102 acres near Brunxes River called the Great Plain within Fordham Manor (deed not recorded until 2 Dec 1700), entire family moves from Rye to Fordham
18 Oct 1684 - witness to a deed
1686 - appointed to a committee to prevent unauthorized cutting of timber on town lands west of Brunxes River (Town Records, 1.3).
Bet 25 May 1688 and 28 Jun 1688 - representatives from the Town of Westchester evict tenants of the Manor of Fordham and give possession of their properties to Elisha and Elijah Barton
28 Jun 1688 - Roger Barton made the deed which serves as will
16 Jul 1688 - Fordham Ryott in Westchester Co., New York
17 Jul 1688 - Testified under oath that he was "aged 60 or thereabouts" (Westchester Deeds A-269)
24 Jul 1688 - Roger Barton testified in court about the authenticity of the deed/will
25 Jul 1688 - Roger Barton's deed/will recorded, Liber A p. 271 f.
abt 1688 - Roger Barton died in Westchester Co., NY