| 4. | Barton, Roger was christened on 14 May 1622 in Ormskirk, , Lancashire, England (son of Barton, Edward and Barton, Mrs. Edward); died after 24 Jul 1688 in Westchester, Westchester, NY. Other Events:
- History: Page 1
- History: Page 2
- _COLOR: 8
- _FSFTID: K27N-78H
- _UID: A2D51D0920A2D5118F6720C45FC100003FA3
Notes:
!SOURCE: The Hadden Book, Copyright - J. Elwood Arnold 1980. pg B 2. BIRT H: Vol CVII N.E.H.G.S. Pg 168.
"Roger Barton, the immigrant ancestor from whom this family descend , was probably born in England, and since on 17 July 1688 he testified un der oath (Westchester Deeds A-269) that he was then 'aged 60 or thereabou ts', his birth took place about the year 1628. Though he is often identi fied with that Barton who on 14 Aug 1642 signed a lease with the Rev. Eve rardus Bogardus for the sixty two acres of the famous farm Bogardus' wif e Anneke Jans, this identification rests upon an error in indexing the st ill extant document,the real tenent having been Rufus Barton, as is show n in 'The American Genealogist', vol 27, no. 3, July 1951, pp. 136-8, un der the title of 'Rufus Barton, not Roger, In Manhattan 1642'. "The f irst undoubted record of Roger Barton on this continent is to be found i n the town records of Brookhaven, Long Island, where on 23 Oct. 1662 Roge r Barton was one of four appointed to lay out the town. The name 'Rog Ba rton' 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 o n '10 mo. 12 1664' (12 Dec 1664?). He may have been the earliest town cl erk of Brookhaven which had been settled from Connecticut in 1655 and joi ned that Colony in 1661. Whith three others, he is styled 'Mr.' in thes e records, a fact which suggests that he was a man of some importance, an d his wife, as will appear, is designated as 'Mrs. Barton', even in conju nction with another woman who is merely termed 'goodwife Bloomer'. on 2 5 April 1664 Roger was named deputy to the Gerneral Court and is Probabl y the 'Mr. Barton' made freeman of Connecticut at the General Assembly wh ich met at Hartford on 12 May 1664 (Public Records of Connecticut [Hartfo rd 1850], 1.428). On 23 Jan 1664/5 he was appointed at Brookhaven on o f six arbitrators; in the same year fined for absence, and named and appr aiser. He purchased land in Brookhaven on 25 Feb. 1664/5; sold a meado w to Henry Perring at an unknown date; and other land to Francis Munsey a nd Wm. Satierly. In April 1665 he was again appointed one of the deputie s to the General Court. Thus far, all the Brookhaven items concern Conne cticut and not New York. "At a court, however, held on 31 Oct. 1665 i n New York City, the defendant Abram Pietersen Corleyn, Accused of selli n stron beer to the Indians, gave as his excuse that 'Mr Borton' had give n his oral assent thereto (New Amsterdam Records, 5.311). This may, as m r. Voge believed, be our Roger Barton, for, with one other, Roger Barto n was elected on 1 March 1665/6 to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (Fe rnow, Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 14.565) at a convention held at Hemp stead 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 b y Corleyn is to our man, this may be evidence of growing unpopularity, fo r in May 1666 orders were given by Governor Nicolls for the arrest and ex pulsion of Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer from Brookhaven. The arrest a ppears to have been resested, for on 22 May 1666 Governor Nicolls issue d a commission to Messrs, Mathias Nicolls (no relation to Richard), Willi am Wells, and Jonas Wood, 'to Examine into the Riotous misdemeanors of so me p[er]sonsin Seatalcott'. The commission makes clear that the constabl e 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 other s who came to his Assistance, And withall, then and there (as also at sev erall other Times, have given out and used evill words and speeches, tend ing to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the Peace o f this Government'. The three commissioners, who were, respectively, 'Se cretary of the Councell', 'high Sheriffe of Yorkshire upon Long Islan[d]' , and 'Justice of the Peace of East Riding', were to investigate the matt er thoroughly, and were authorized to call before them Richard Odiell (Wo odhull, not otherwise mentioned), Roger Barton, and Robert Bloomer, or an y other persons. "Accordingly, The commissioners conducted their investig ation and 'having taken upon Oath severall Depositions wherein Roger Bart on and Robert Bloomer are proved Guilty of severall Crimes tending to th e derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the peace of this Go vernment", Messrs, Nicolls and wells issued a warrant to m[r]. Daniell La ne and Mr. John Tucker of Seatalcott for the arrest of Barton and Bloome r under date of 27 May 1666. An official proclamation outlawing the tw o men was issued on the 31st and on the next day Mathias Nicolls wrote t o Lane and Tucker a letter in which he informed them that on the mornin g 'Mrs Barton' had presented the Governor 'one Petic[i]on in behalfe of h er selfe and Children, and another from Bloomers wife'. The governor inf ormed her that he could do nothing for either woman until the expiratio n of the time limited in the proclamation for their husbands coming in . Nicolls told his correspondents, however, that the governor was please d to permit them to 'make use of any necessaryes, out of their Husbands E state, for their, and their Childrens Subsistence'. The women were to b e used civilly, to be allowed to care for their property, but an accoun t was to be rendered to prevent embezzlement. "The official proclamat ion outlawing the men indicates that they, 'being Concious of their guilt , and apprehensive of the Punishmt their crimes deserve', had 'withdrawn e themselves from their habitations' and 'are fled away'. Thus far, we ha ve been following the original record in the State Library at Albany. Th e two men probably escaped to Connecticut, leaving their families behin d them, for there is a record that in 1666 constable sold some of their h ousehold goods 'to pay the charge of the Commissioners'. A Court of Sess ions, held at Southold (Brookhaven Record, 1.109) on 2-4 June 1669, repea ts the same story and the Governor, Council, and Court now levied a fin e of 50 pounds through the sale of the estates, any residue to be returne d for the relief of the families. Mrs. Barton had been required to pay 1 3/4 pounds to the Commissioners,Goodwife Bloomer 13/10 pounds. Bloomer' s property was sold by the Sheriff for 20 pounds, out of which he gave 1 2 pounds to his wife Rachel, But nothing is said of what was done with B arton's land in Brookhaven. The whole controversy was doubtless a questio n of which colony should control Brookhaven. A letter of John Allyn, Sec retary 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 Seatalcot t, perhaps earlier of the Barton-Bloomer difficulties. "It may be that Co nnecticut was the place of refuge to which the men fled, but the only rec ord found which possibly connects Roger Barton with Connecticut after 166 6 is contained in an allusion in the Minutes of of the Hartford Town Meet ing for 1677 (Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc., 6.183): 'The Townsmen for thatt yea re were deptor by sum Cloath giune for the towns use by Squire Battaine06 -06-00', but this may be another man, even a different name. "It wil l have been noted above that in 1666 Roger barton and his wife, her nam e unknown, had children, number not specified. The wife who suffered s o nobly at Seatalcott was, for all we nnow to the contrary, the mary Bart on who survived Roger when he died about 1688 and was still living in wes tchester with his sons Noah and Joseph in 1698. Her surname has not bee n recovered. A descendant states (Nat. Soc. Daughters of Founders and Pa triots, 19.88), wsthout documentation, that Mary was a Lounsberry. A cor respondent has claimed that Mrs Roger Barton was daughter of Richard Loun sbury 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 da ughter 'Mary, the wife of Roger Barton, deceased'. The will does mentio n Mary but without reference to her being married or not, and it is know n from the will of John Haddam of Westchester (Pelletreau, Westchester wi lls, p. 391), probated in 1700, that mary Lounsbury was the wife in 170 0 of Israel Rogers. Mrs. Winifred Lovering Holman informs me that Richar d Lounsbury, father of Mary Lounsbury Rogers, married by license, 1 Aug . 1670, Elizabethy Penrye (Penoyer), who on 8 Jan. 1677/8 was recorded a s aged 24, i.e., born in 1653 or thereabouts. A worman born in 1653, mar ried at 17 in 1670, could hardly be the mother of another woman who as ea rly as 1666 was the mother of at least two children. If Mary Barton wa s really a Lounsbury, we have no evidence of it, and she must have been d aughter of some other Lounsbury than Richard of Rye. No record of the ma rriage of Roger barton to Mary ------- has been found in Connecticut or N ew York, and the probability is that they were already married when the y crossed the Atlantic. Mr. Voge has pointed out the though, except fo r an early connection with Connecticut, Roger Barton himself does not exh ibit strong Puritan characteristics, the names of several of his sons d o (Elisha, Elijah, Noah, and Enoch), and it may be that Mary Barton was o f Puritan stock. "About 1670, it is said by Charles W. Baird ("Histor y of Rye" [New York, 1871], pp. 52 f.) that Roger Barton acquired the lan d 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 Stre et, north of the road leading to Mamussing Island, as far as the brook an d inlet above Dr. Sands' house near to Port Chester'. No Barton deeds fo r this area have been found in Westchester records and it is probable tha t, if extant, they lie hidden in some Connecticut archive. "Whateve r the truth about the period at Rye, Roger Barton purchased on 20 Nov 167 8, from John Archer, first Lord of the Manor of Fordham, a tract of 102 a cres 'lying near Brunxes River, commonly called the Great Plain, Within t he bounds of the said manor', together with a sixteenth part of the sal t Meadow and a share of fresh meadow adjoining the 'Nursery Swamp'. Thi s land was assigned to Barton 'for various causes and more especially val uable considerations of money', but as a token payment signifying enfeoff ment, Barton and his heirs and assigns were obligated to pay Archer and h is 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 ma nor of Fordham and Its Founder' [New York, 1950] pp. 92-4) Archer also so ld similar tracts to Thomas Statham, John Conklin, Jeremiah Cannife, Will iam Jones, Jonathan Hudson, and Nathaniel Stevens. According to Mr. Meli ck, Barton and Statham, at least gave bonds to Archer, neither of which h ad been satisfied by 1688 (op. cit., pp 114 f.). 'Barton's deed for t his transacton, not recorded until 2 Dec. 1700, long fafter the grantee' s death (Westchester Deeds, C-68-70), contains the statement that Arche r had permission of Cornelius Steenwyck to sell the property, and Steenwy ck actually signed the various times Archer had mortgaged the Manor to St eenwyck, The currently unsatisfied mortgage being dated 24 Nov 1676 (Meli ck, op. cit., p 88). At Archer's death (before 20 Nov. 1684) this Mortga ge was still unsatisfied, and on the last-named date, Steenwyck bequeathe d his interest in the Manor, with the written consent of his wife (Margar ieta de Riemer), to the Nether Dutch Reformed Church in Manhattan, the wi ll being probated 8 May 1685. On 20 Oct 1686, however, Matters were furt her complicated by the fact that the widow Margarieta de Riemer Steenwyc k married secondly, the Rev. Henricus Selyns, minister of that church whi ch now was ultimately to gain title to the unsold part of the Manor of Fo rdham. As has been stated, Mr. Melick claims on the basis of the record s now preserved in the Archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of N ew York, that Barton's bond was still unsatisfied on 30 Oct. 1688 (op. ci t., pp. 114 f.), which is a very curious fact in the light of what we sha ll see a bit later. 'Following the purchase of the 102 acres, the Bar ton family moved at once to Fordham -- there are no Bartons listed in Ry e in 1683 (R. Bolton, "History of Westchester County", 2.139) -- and on 2 5 Dec. 1678 Roger Barton witnessed a land sale by william Davenport of Yo nkers (c3353) and on 3 July 1682, when "at Westchester, New Yorkshire", h e witnessed the sale of "jades" (horses) -- see N. Y. Gen. & Biogr. rec. , 45.131, where the name is spelled "Bartow". on 4 July 1682 the Town o f Westchester gave to Roger barton, Yeoman, "within the bounds of the afo resaid town, upon the west side of Brunxes River, one parcel of land wher e his dwelling house stands" (Westchester Town Records, 1.150). A curiou s statement, that! It is probably to be explained by thge fact that by n ow, as described by Mr. Melick, the dispute between the Lord of the Mano r of Fordham and the Town of Westchester, over ownership of the land on t he west side of Brunxes River, had begun; that the town now claimed thi s part of the Manor land; that, in order to strengthen the town's inhabit ants in their tenure of the property, the town now granted to barton th e very land which he had purchased form Archer in 1678. That this conclu sion is the correct one will be shown when we come to discuss Roger Barto n's final deed as grantor, for there the land he held of the Tjown of Wes tchester is described in such a way that it must be identical with the la nd he pruchased from Archer. 'Further refernces to Roger Barton appea r in the Westchester Town Record. In November 1684 (1.150) houses to be b uilt are mentioned, and one is located "between Roger Barton and the lin e of Col. Lewis Morris's [of Morrisania] at the side of the Brook by th e 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, Jose ph Palmer, John Hunt, and William Barnes) ordered by the Town of Westches ter to visit "Spittin Debell" for the purpose of there meeting Philip Wel ls, a surveyer, 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 T own Council as one of a committee of three to prevent unauthorized cuttin g of timber on the town lands (then claimed by Archer, of course) west o f Brunxes River (Town Records, 1.3). "The dispute between the Town o f 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 th e summer of 1688 grew quite heated. Some time between 25 May and 28 Jun e 1688, probably in early June, two representatives of the Town of Westch ester, Richard Ponton and Edward Waters, evicted Aert Pieterse Buys and R eyer Michelsen, both tenants of the Manor of Fordham, the former for twen ty years, from the properties they had held, and placed in possession Eli sha and Elijah Barton, the two eldest sons of Roger. According to mr. Me lick (p. 113) the persons placed in possession were Roger and Elijah Bart on. This is an error, due partly to the fact that when the Dutch learne d of the act, they found Roger Barton on the premises, acting as Locum te nens for his son Elijah, and partly to a not unnatural confusion of the t wo 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 Cour t also made the same error, though correct testimony had been presented t o it. "This was the situation, then, when on 28 June 1688 Roger Barto n made the deed which servas as his will, acknowledged before the court o n 24 July 1688 as his own instrument and recorded on 25 July 1688 by Jose ph 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 reli gion, to the 'perfitt memory' of the grantor, etc., and it provides a lif e interestfor the wife. Moreover, it conveys, by different paragraphs, s eparate parcels of the grantor's estate, respectively, to the three of th e sons outright, to the wife for life, and after her death to the other t hree sons. There can be no doubt that the grantor was contemplating deat h when he made the deed and that it actually served as a will. "Followin g the opening paragraph, allusion is made to the fact that the grantor i s disposing of 'all such Temporall Estate as it hath pleased God Almight y to bestow upon me'. Then come the specific conveyances: .... "'Fir st of all I give my Son Elisha Barton a parcell of land being twenty Pol e in Width on the west side of the Land I hould of the Towne of Westchest er the whole Length of the Tract is Cittuate and being on the East side o f the Lott the Towne of Westchester aforesaid gave to Elishah Barton & on e third part of the fresh meadow I bought of John Hadden, Senior. "'S econdly, I give unto myu Sonn Elijah Barton twenty two Pole wide to the E ast of Elishah Bartons Land Aforesaid to Runn the whole length aforesai d [preceding word cancelled] of the said Land with one third part of th e aforesaid Meadow. "'thirdly, I give unto my son Roger Barton all th at Tract or parcell of Land which was given mee ny the freeholders and In habbitants of the Yonkers Plantation. "'fourthly, I give unto my Dear e & Loveing Wife Mary Barton all the rest of the said tract of land I hol d of the towne of westchester with all and Singular my Goods, Chattles, L eaces, personall Estate Whatsoever utensils houshod stuff, Implements an d things whatsoever of what nature, kind or property soever the same be o r can be found within the Government of New Yorke or elswheare with thre e acres of meadow on Longe Neck being the northmost meadow that is layd o ut by Bronx River, with the third part of Remainder of the fresh meadow a fore Recited to my two sonns Elishah and Elijah and for and dureing her n atural Life to be at her dispose. "'And Imeadiately after her deceas e to be Eaqually shared betweene Noah Barton, Enoch barton, and Joseph Ba rton and if any of the three should depart this naturall Life before tha t tme before Exprest then to be Equally devided between the Survivers, An y of them to whom the house and Orchard due happen to be their share is t o pay yearely and Every yeare to the Treasurer of the Towne of Westcheste r one Bushell of Winter Wheat it being for Quitt Rent for the whole Trac t I hold of the Towne of Westchester aforesaid'. "There is a good deal mo re to the deed, but it says nothing not already expressed in the quotatio n above, ad the deed ends with the following: "'...I have putt the af oresaid Elishah & Elijah Roger & Mary my wife and after her decease Noa h Enock & joseph in full and Peacable Possession and seizen of all and Ev ery of the Aforesaid Premisses'. "The witnesses weere Andrew Davis [s igned by mark] and Joseph Lee, and the acknowledgement on 24 July 1688 wa s before John Palmer, Justice of the Peace & Quorum Comitt. Westchester , whom we shall meet again later. "On this deed the following comment s should be made: (a) though the property granted to Elisha, Elijah, an d Mary, would appear to be the Archer Tract other wise unmentioned, it is , however called a grant from the town of Westchester; (b) the nature o f the originalgrant was such as to require, still the annual payment o f a quit rent; (c) nothing is otherwise known of the purchase from Hadde n of the grant from Yonkers Plantation; (d) though there is presumption t hat, as Mr. Voge claimed, Noah, Enoch, and Joseph were still minors in 16 88, 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 t hat she was a second wife, not their mother, but possibly mother of the t hree youngest sons who were to inherit her share. The making of this dee d at this time seems to suggest, first, that the unsettled conditions cre ated by the land dispute made it extremely desireable to take thought fo r the transfer of the property to the potential heirs before death itsel f came; an, secondly, that in the summer of 1688 the health of Roger Bart on was such as to make him mindful of the need for leaving his affairs i n order. "Between the time of the signing of the deed, however, and t he acknowledging of it before the justice on 24 july 1688, matters came t o a head. There is an extensive account of 16 July 1688 presented, fro m the Westchester Town point of view, in Westchester Deeds, Lib. A, pp. 2 65-70. For an account of the events from the point of view of the Dutc h Church, we may cite Mr. Melick's excellent book already Mentioned abov e (pp. 109-119), which is in turn based on a memorandum for Samuel Winde r written by Nicholas Bayard, attorney for the Dutch Church, on 18 Nov. 1 688, 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 jus tice of the peace of Westchester, we may piece together what had happene d on the day preceding. The Deponents and thir ages were as follows: Rog er Barton, Sr., aged about 60; Elisha Barton, aged about 20; Andrew Davis , aged about 22; Edward Hubbard, aged about 45; Robert hudson, aged abou t 48; Thomas Statham, aged about 47; Jacobn Vallentine, aged about 25; an d Hendrick Verveale, aged about 20. As the depositions are in part repet itious, they may be summarrezed as follows: "The Dutch party who atte mpted to evict the Bartons seemed to most witnesses to be a 'great compan y', the following being named as present init: (1) Reyer Michelsen (nam e also spelled 'Reyer Meceale', 'Ryer Michaill', 'Ryer Micele', 'Richar d Michaile'), Son of Michaill Bastians, and one of those originally evict ed by Ponton and Waters; (2) Hendrick Keirson (name spelled also 'Kearse ' and 'Kerse'); (3) the unnamed wife of Keirson; (4) Nicholas Stuyvesan t (so spelled in Melick's account but in the Westchester record he is 'St evenson' or 'Stevanson' or 'Stephenson'); (5) Tunis Decay; (6) Johannes K ipp; (7) Michaill Bastians, father of Reyer Michelsen; (8) the unnamed wi fe of Michaill Bastians; (9) Bastian Michailes, another oson of Michail l Bastians; (10) Jacques Tourneur (so spelled by Melick, in Westchester r ecords he is 'Jacobb Turneare' or 'Turneire'); and (11) Hannah Odle, wif e of John Odle (Odell). Mr. Melick says there were others present, but t heir names are not recorded. Hendrick Verveale is in a peculiar position , for he is claimed my Mr. Melick as a Dutch partisan, by he also gave te stimony the next day from the Westchester point of view -- perhaps he wa s taken prisoner and testified under duress, though there is nother to su ggest this. "The Dutch approached both houses, according to the testi mony at the same hour, 'about 3 of the clock', but it would appear that t hey first attacked the house of Elijah Barton, then the house of Elisha B arton, after which the party returned to Elijah's house. ElijahBarton i s not mentioned as present at his house and he did not testify the next d ay. Instead, his father Roger was there, inside, with the door locked . Whether Hendrick Verveale and Jacob Vallentine were also with him insi de is not clerar, though their testimony supports his. Roger was in th e house 'for to keepe possession in for & behyalfe of the Towne of Westch ester' when 'there came a great company of men with Nicholas Bayard of Ne w Yorke and with fforce & Armes did Assault teh Deponant [Roger Barton, S r.] And break open the doore of the house and hailed the deponant out An d one of the Company by the name Tunis Decay punched him with his Elboe s and some of the Company Cryed kick him on the breech & others Cryed dis arme him and send him away. And what they did in the house Afterwards y e Deponant Knoweth not'. Verveale testfied that Roger looded out the wind ow and said to Nicholas Stephenson: 'Keepe of[t]', who had a great pole i n his hand which he pulled out of the fence and forced the doore therewit h intending to break it open but Could not doe it where upon Tunis Deca y Came up to the Said Stevenson and tooke the pole out of his hand & wen t to Nicholas Bayard and Asked Libertie of him if he might breake open th e dooreWhereupon the said bayard replyed Yes, I give you Liberty & the sa id Tunis with force & Armes did breake open the doore and the said Roge r with all his might shutt ye doore againe, whereuponjohannes Kipp did br eak the door open againe and did Enter the house first and Tusis Deca y & Johannes Kipp haled the said Roger out of the house and some the Comp any cryed kick him, Kick him [note Verveale's use of fastidious language ] and Also Cryed disarem him, disarme him'. Vallentine merely dposed tha t he saw Kipp enter the house and 'haled Roger out & tooke his Pitchfor d from him and bad[e him] begone'. Roger's testimony continues: 'Afterwa rds as he was going homwards there came one the Company with a sword [Dec ay?] & would not lett him pass alonge the high way bnut with force & Arme s did Turne him back againe whereby the deponant was forced to take anoth er way through the woods for feare of being waylaid againe'. Obviously, R oger Barton was not then living with his son Elijah but elsewhere. " Having successfully vanquished and old man armed only with a pitchfork, t he Dutch party then appear to have moved quickly on to Elisha barton's ho use, formerly occupied by Reyer Michelsen, where they found Elisha and An drew Davis whithin. Here Richard Michaile (the former occupant) and Tuni s Decay broke open the locked door and evicted both men. 'Further, in br eakeing open the dore ye dore flew open and hitt the deponent [Elisha] o n ye Left Eye and hurt very soore & Afterwards they Locked the doore on y e 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 t o See what Tumult it was at Elijah Bartons house & for to keepe possessio n for & in behalfe of the Towne And the Deponant [Hubbard] came to the ho use and found no doore thereon & Severall Pallasades broke down from th e side of the sd house but found no body & about halfe an houre After, th ere came a great Companby of men, with Nicholas Bayard to said houses an d Nicholas bayard came to the deponant and said what doe youe here and th e deponant, replyed that he was keeping of possession for & in behalfe o f the Towne of Westchester, where upon the said bayard bid him be gone o r Else he would sett him goeing, and the Company fell upon him & held hi m by the haire of the head and the shoulders & kicked him Tunis Decay Dre w his sword at him'. "At this juncture, Thomas Statham and Robert Hud son happened along that way, en route, as they said, to Vallentine Clauso n's [Clawson's] house 'about their owne ocations' [Hudson], 'about thie r owne bussines' [Statham]. Statham suddenly heard a great noise and sai d to Hudson: 'put on Robert for yonder I heare a great Crying out [Hudso n 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 o f the two evicted originally by Ponton and Waters] formerly Lived he & th e said Robert Saw a great Company of men & Nicholas Bayard of New Yorke w ith them & some of the Company kicking and abuseing Edward Hubard & pulli ng and haleing him out of the yard over the fence into the streete & th e Deponant Asked what is here to do are the[y] killing or murdering o f a man where upon Nicholas Bayard came towards ye Deponant and said, wh o is thow Mr Statham yes Replyed ye deponant I am Thomas Statham where up on the said Bayard Enquired of ye Deponant & said what have you to do her e Gett you about your bussines & the Deponant replyed & said he was in th e King's [sic] high way about his bussines & further the said Bayard dema nded of the deponant whose land the was & the deponant replyed westcheste r for ought he knew & part of it his owne by vertyo of his purchase [fro m John Archer in 1678] where upon Byard threatoned the deponant and gav e him Scurrelous Language and said it shoud be worse for him ant yt he wa s a deceitfull fellow & hat better beene at home about his bussines'
Hudson's testimony is substantially the same, but adds the detail that wh ile Hubbard was being abused, bayard turned his back on the scene and the n denied it was Happening.
"Naturally, the Westchester partisans lost no time in seeking legan p rotection. The testimony summarized above was taken by the Justice, Joh n Palmer, on the seventeenth, and on the twentieth, the Sheriff, Benjam
"Roger Barton, the immigrant ancestor from whom this family descend , was probably born in England, and since on 17 July 1688 he testified un der oath (Westchester Deeds A-269) that he was then 'aged 60 or thereabou ts', his birth took place about the year 1628. Though he is often identi fied with that Barton who on 14 Aug 1642 signed a lease with the Rev. Eve rardus Bogardus for the sixty two acres of the famous farm Bogardus' wif e Anneke Jans, this identification rests upon an error in indexing the st ill extant document,the real tenent having been Rufus Barton, as is show n in 'The American Genealogist', vol 27, no. 3, July 1951, pp. 136-8, un der the title of 'Rufus Barton, not Roger, In Manhattan 1642'. "The f irst undoubted record of Roger Barton on this continent is to be found i n the town records of Brookhaven, Long Island, where on 23 Oct. 1662 Roge r Barton was one of four appointed to lay out the town. The name 'Rog Ba rton' 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 o n '10 mo. 12 1664' (12 Dec 1664?). He may have been the earliest town cl erk of Brookhaven which had been settled from Connecticut in 1655 and joi ned that Colony in 1661. Whith three others, he is styled 'Mr.' in thes e records, a fact which suggests that he was a man of some importance, an d his wife, as will appear, is designated as 'Mrs. Barton', even in conju nction with another woman who is merely termed 'goodwife Bloomer'. on 2 5 April 1664 Roger was named deputy to the Gerneral Court and is Probabl y the 'Mr. Barton' made freeman of Connecticut at the General Assembly wh ich met at Hartford on 12 May 1664 (Public Records of Connecticut [Hartfo rd 1850], 1.428). On 23 Jan 1664/5 he was appointed at Brookhaven on o f six arbitrators; in the same year fined for absence, and named and appr aiser. He purchased land in Brookhaven on 25 Feb. 1664/5; sold a meado w to Henry Perring at an unknown date; and other land to Francis Munsey a nd Wm. Satierly. In April 1665 he was again appointed one of the deputie s to the General Court. Thus far, all the Brookhaven items concern Conne cticut and not New York. "At a court, however, held on 31 Oct. 1665 i n New York City, the defendant Abram Pietersen Corleyn, Accused of selli n stron beer to the Indians, gave as his excuse that 'Mr Borton' had give n his oral assent thereto (New Amsterdam Records, 5.311). This may, as m r. Voge believed, be our Roger Barton, for, with one other, Roger Barto n was elected on 1 March 1665/6 to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (Fe rnow, Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 14.565) at a convention held at Hemp stead 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 b y Corleyn is to our man, this may be evidence of growing unpopularity, fo r in May 1666 orders were given by Governor Nicolls for the arrest and ex pulsion of Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer from Brookhaven. The arrest a ppears to have been resested, for on 22 May 1666 Governor Nicolls issue d a commission to Messrs, Mathias Nicolls (no relation to Richard), Willi am Wells, and Jonas Wood, 'to Examine into the Riotous misdemeanors of so me p[er]sonsin Seatalcott'. The commission makes clear that the constabl e 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 other s who came to his Assistance, And withall, then and there (as also at sev erall other Times, have given out and used evill words and speeches, tend ing to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the Peace o f this Government'. The three commissioners, who were, respectively, 'Se cretary of the Councell', 'high Sheriffe of Yorkshire upon Long Islan[d]' , and 'Justice of the Peace of East Riding', were to investigate the matt er thoroughly, and were authorized to call before them Richard Odiell (Wo odhull, not otherwise mentioned), Roger Barton, and Robert Bloomer, or an y other persons. "Accordingly, The commissioners conducted their investig ation and 'having taken upon Oath severall Depositions wherein Roger Bart on and Robert Bloomer are proved Guilty of severall Crimes tending to th e derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the peace of this Go vernment", Messrs, Nicolls and wells issued a warrant to m[r]. Daniell La ne and Mr. John Tucker of Seatalcott for the arrest of Barton and Bloome r under date of 27 May 1666. An official proclamation outlawing the tw o men was issued on the 31st and on the next day Mathias Nicolls wrote t o Lane and Tucker a letter in which he informed them that on the mornin g 'Mrs Barton' had presented the Governor 'one Petic[i]on in behalfe of h er selfe and Children, and another from Bloomers wife'. The governor inf ormed her that he could do nothing for either woman until the expiratio n of the time limited in the proclamation for their husbands coming in . Nicolls told his correspondents, however, that the governor was please d to permit them to 'make use of any necessaryes, out of their Husbands E state, for their, and their Childrens Subsistence'. The women were to b e used civilly, to be allowed to care for their property, but an accoun t was to be rendered to prevent embezzlement. "The official proclamat ion outlawing the men indicates that they, 'being Concious of their guilt , and apprehensive of the Punishmt their crimes deserve', had 'withdrawn e themselves from their habitations' and 'are fled away'. Thus far, we ha ve been following the original record in the State Library at Albany. Th e two men probably escaped to Connecticut, leaving their families behin d them, for there is a record that in 1666 constable sold some of their h ousehold goods 'to pay the charge of the Commissioners'. A Court of Sess ions, held at Southold (Brookhaven Record, 1.109) on 2-4 June 1669, repea ts the same story and the Governor, Council, and Court now levied a fin e of 50 pounds through the sale of the estates, any residue to be returne d for the relief of the families. Mrs. Barton had been required to pay 1 3/4 pounds to the Commissioners,Goodwife Bloomer 13/10 pounds. Bloomer' s property was sold by the Sheriff for 20 pounds, out of which he gave 1 2 pounds to his wife Rachel, But nothing is said of what was done with B arton's land in Brookhaven. The whole controversy was doubtless a questio n of which colony should control Brookhaven. A letter of John Allyn, Sec retary 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 Seatalcot t, perhaps earlier of the Barton-Bloomer difficulties. "It may be that Co nnecticut was the place of refuge to which the men fled, but the only rec ord found which possibly connects Roger Barton with Connecticut after 166 6 is contained in an allusion in the Minutes of of the Hartford Town Meet ing for 1677 (Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc., 6.183): 'The Townsmen for thatt yea re were deptor by sum Cloath giune for the towns use by Squire Battaine06 -06-00', but this may be another man, even a different name. "It wil l have been noted above that in 1666 Roger barton and his wife, her nam e unknown, had children, number not specified. The wife who suffered s o nobly at Seatalcott was, for all we nnow to the contrary, the mary Bart on who survived Roger when he died about 1688 and was still living in wes tchester with his sons Noah and Joseph in 1698. Her surname has not bee n recovered. A descendant states (Nat. Soc. Daughters of Founders and Pa triots, 19.88), wsthout documentation, that Mary was a Lounsberry. A cor respondent has claimed that Mrs Roger Barton was daughter of Richard Loun sbury 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 da ughter 'Mary, the wife of Roger Barton, deceased'. The will does mentio n Mary but without reference to her being married or not, and it is know n from the will of John Haddam of Westchester (Pelletreau, Westchester wi lls, p. 391), probated in 1700, that mary Lounsbury was the wife in 170 0 of Israel Rogers. Mrs. Winifred Lovering Holman informs me that Richar d Lounsbury, father of Mary Lounsbury Rogers, married by license, 1 Aug . 1670, Elizabethy Penrye (Penoyer), who on 8 Jan. 1677/8 was recorded a s aged 24, i.e., born in 1653 or thereabouts. A worman born in 1653, mar ried at 17 in 1670, could hardly be the mother of another woman who as ea rly as 1666 was the mother of at least two children. If Mary Barton wa s really a Lounsbury, we have no evidence of it, and she must have been d aughter of some other Lounsbury than Richard of Rye. No record of the ma rriage of Roger barton to Mary ------- has been found in Connecticut or N ew York, and the probability is that they were already married when the y crossed the Atlantic. Mr. Voge has pointed out the though, except fo r an early connection with Connecticut, Roger Barton himself does not exh ibit strong Puritan characteristics, the names of several of his sons d o (Elisha, Elijah, Noah, and Enoch), and it may be that Mary Barton was o f Puritan stock. "About 1670, it is said by Charles W. Baird ("Histor y of Rye" [New York, 1871], pp. 52 f.) that Roger Barton acquired the lan d 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 Stre et, north of the road leading to Mamussing Island, as far as the brook an d inlet above Dr. Sands' house near to Port Chester'. No Barton deeds fo r this area have been found in Westchester records and it is probable tha t, if extant, they lie hidden in some Connecticut archive. "Whateve r the truth about the period at Rye, Roger Barton purchased on 20 Nov 167 8, from John Archer, first Lord of the Manor of Fordham, a tract of 102 a cres 'lying near Brunxes River, commonly called the Great Plain, Within t he bounds of the said manor', together with a sixteenth part of the sal t Meadow and a share of fresh meadow adjoining the 'Nursery Swamp'. Thi s land was assigned to Barton 'for various causes and more especially val uable considerations of money', but as a token payment signifying enfeoff ment, Barton and his heirs and assigns were obligated to pay Archer and h is 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 ma nor of Fordham and Its Founder' [New York, 1950] pp. 92-4) Archer also so ld similar tracts to Thomas Statham, John Conklin, Jeremiah Cannife, Will iam Jones, Jonathan Hudson, and Nathaniel Stevens. According to Mr. Meli ck, Barton and Statham, at least gave bonds to Archer, neither of which h ad been satisfied by 1688 (op. cit., pp 114 f.). 'Barton's deed for t his transacton, not recorded until 2 Dec. 1700, long fafter the grantee' s death (Westchester Deeds, C-68-70), contains the statement that Arche r had permission of Cornelius Steenwyck to sell the property, and Steenwy ck actually signed the various times Archer had mortgaged the Manor to St eenwyck, The currently unsatisfied mortgage being dated 24 Nov 1676 (Meli ck, op. cit., p 88). At Archer's death (before 20 Nov. 1684) this Mortga ge was still unsatisfied, and on the last-named date, Steenwyck bequeathe d his interest in the Manor, with the written consent of his wife (Margar ieta de Riemer), to the Nether Dutch Reformed Church in Manhattan, the wi ll being probated 8 May 1685. On 20 Oct 1686, however, Matters were furt her complicated by the fact that the widow Margarieta de Riemer Steenwyc k married secondly, the Rev. Henricus Selyns, minister of that church whi ch now was ultimately to gain title to the unsold part of the Manor of Fo rdham. As has been stated, Mr. Melick claims on the basis of the record s now preserved in the Archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of N ew York, that Barton's bond was still unsatisfied on 30 Oct. 1688 (op. ci t., pp. 114 f.), which is a very curious fact in the light of what we sha ll see a bit later. 'Following the purchase of the 102 acres, the Bar ton family moved at once to Fordham -- there are no Bartons listed in Ry e in 1683 (R. Bolton, "History of Westchester County", 2.139) -- and on 2 5 Dec. 1678 Roger Barton witnessed a land sale by william Davenport of Yo nkers (c3353) and on 3 July 1682, when "at Westchester, New Yorkshire", h e witnessed the sale of "jades" (horses) -- see N. Y. Gen. & Biogr. rec. , 45.131, where the name is spelled "Bartow". on 4 July 1682 the Town o f Westchester gave to Roger barton, Yeoman, "within the bounds of the afo resaid town, upon the west side of Brunxes River, one parcel of land wher e his dwelling house stands" (Westchester Town Records, 1.150). A curiou s statement, that! It is probably to be explained by thge fact that by n ow, as described by Mr. Melick, the dispute between the Lord of the Mano r of Fordham and the Town of Westchester, over ownership of the land on t he west side of Brunxes River, had begun; that the town now claimed thi s part of the Manor land; that, in order to strengthen the town's inhabit ants in their tenure of the property, the town now granted to barton th e very land which he had purchased form Archer in 1678. That this conclu sion is the correct one will be shown when we come to discuss Roger Barto n's final deed as grantor, for there the land he held of the Tjown of Wes tchester is described in such a way that it must be identical with the la nd he pruchased from Archer. 'Further refernces to Roger Barton appea r in the Westchester Town Record. In November 1684 (1.150) houses to be b uilt are mentioned, and one is located "between Roger Barton and the lin e of Col. Lewis Morris's [of Morrisania] at the side of the Brook by th e 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, Jose ph Palmer, John Hunt, and William Barnes) ordered by the Town of Westches ter to visit "Spittin Debell" for the purpose of there meeting Philip Wel ls, a surveyer, 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 T own Council as one of a committee of three to prevent unauthorized cuttin g of timber on the town lands (then claimed by Archer, of course) west o f Brunxes River (Town Records, 1.3). "The dispute between the Town o f 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 th e summer of 1688 grew quite heated. Some time between 25 May and 28 Jun e 1688, probably in early June, two representatives of the Town of Westch ester, Richard Ponton and Edward Waters, evicted Aert Pieterse Buys and R eyer Michelsen, both tenants of the Manor of Fordham, the former for twen ty years, from the properties they had held, and placed in possession Eli sha and Elijah Barton, the two eldest sons of Roger. According to mr. Me lick (p. 113) the persons placed in possession were Roger and Elijah Bart on. This is an error, due partly to the fact that when the Dutch learne d of the act, they found Roger Barton on the premises, acting as Locum te nens for his son Elijah, and partly to a not unnatural confusion of the t wo 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 Cour t also made the same error, though correct testimony had been presented t o it. "This was the situation, then, when on 28 June 1688 Roger Barto n made the deed which servas as his will, acknowledged before the court o n 24 July 1688 as his own instrument and recorded on 25 July 1688 by Jose ph 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 reli gion, to the 'perfitt memory' of the grantor, etc., and it provides a lif e interestfor the wife. Moreover, it conveys, by different paragraphs, s eparate parcels of the grantor's estate, respectively, to the three of th e sons outright, to the wife for life, and after her death to the other t hree sons. There can be no doubt that the grantor was contemplating deat h when he made the deed and that it actually served as a will. "Followin g the opening paragraph, allusion is made to the fact that the grantor i s disposing of 'all such Temporall Estate as it hath pleased God Almight y to bestow upon me'. Then come the specific conveyances: .... "'Fir st of all I give my Son Elisha Barton a parcell of land being twenty Pol e in Width on the west side of the Land I hould of the Towne of Westchest er the whole Length of the Tract is Cittuate and being on the East side o f the Lott the Towne of Westchester aforesaid gave to Elishah Barton & on e third part of the fresh meadow I bought of John Hadden, Senior. "'S econdly, I give unto myu Sonn Elijah Barton twenty two Pole wide to the E ast of Elishah Bartons Land Aforesaid to Runn the whole length aforesai d [preceding word cancelled] of the said Land with one third part of th e aforesaid Meadow. "'thirdly, I give unto my son Roger Barton all th at Tract or parcell of Land which was given mee ny the freeholders and In habbitants of the Yonkers Plantation. "'fourthly, I give unto my Dear e & Loveing Wife Mary Barton all the rest of the said tract of land I hol d of the towne of westchester with all and Singular my Goods, Chattles, L eaces, personall Estate Whatsoever utensils houshod stuff, Implements an d things whatsoever of what nature, kind or property soever the same be o r can be found within the Government of New Yorke or elswheare with thre e acres of meadow on Longe Neck being the northmost meadow that is layd o ut by Bronx River, with the third part of Remainder of the fresh meadow a fore Recited to my two sonns Elishah and Elijah and for and dureing her n atural Life to be at her dispose. "'And Imeadiately after her deceas e to be Eaqually shared betweene Noah Barton, Enoch barton, and Joseph Ba rton and if any of the three should depart this naturall Life before tha t tme before Exprest then to be Equally devided between the Survivers, An y of them to whom the house and Orchard due happen to be their share is t o pay yearely and Every yeare to the Treasurer of the Towne of Westcheste r one Bushell of Winter Wheat it being for Quitt Rent for the whole Trac t I hold of the Towne of Westchester aforesaid'. "There is a good deal mo re to the deed, but it says nothing not already expressed in the quotatio n above, ad the deed ends with the following: "'...I have putt the af oresaid Elishah & Elijah Roger & Mary my wife and after her decease Noa h Enock & joseph in full and Peacable Possession and seizen of all and Ev ery of the Aforesaid Premisses'. "The witnesses weere Andrew Davis [s igned by mark] and Joseph Lee, and the acknowledgement on 24 July 1688 wa s before John Palmer, Justice of the Peace & Quorum Comitt. Westchester , whom we shall meet again later. "On this deed the following comment s should be made: (a) though the property granted to Elisha, Elijah, an d Mary, would appear to be the Archer Tract other wise unmentioned, it is , however called a grant from the town of Westchester; (b) the nature o f the originalgrant was such as to require, still the annual payment o f a quit rent; (c) nothing is otherwise known of the purchase from Hadde n of the grant from Yonkers Plantation; (d) though there is presumption t hat, as Mr. Voge claimed, Noah, Enoch, and Joseph were still minors in 16 88, 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 t hat she was a second wife, not their mother, but possibly mother of the t hree youngest sons who were to inherit her share. The making of this dee d at this time seems to suggest, first, that the unsettled conditions cre ated by the land dispute made it extremely desireable to take thought fo r the transfer of the property to the potential heirs before death itsel f came; an, secondly, that in the summer of 1688 the health of Roger Bart on was such as to make him mindful of the need for leaving his affairs i n order. "Between the time of the signing of the deed, however, and t he acknowledging of it before the justice on 24 july 1688, matters came t o a head. There is an extensive account of 16 July 1688 presented, fro m the Westchester Town point of view, in Westchester Deeds, Lib. A, pp. 2 65-70. For an account of the events from the point of view of the Dutc h Church, we may cite Mr. Melick's excellent book already Mentioned abov e (pp. 109-119), which is in turn based on a memorandum for Samuel Winde r written by Nicholas Bayard, attorney for the Dutch Church, on 18 Nov. 1 688, 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 jus tice of the peace of Westchester, we may piece together what had happene d on the day preceding. The Deponents and thir ages were as follows: Rog er Barton, Sr., aged about 60; Elisha Barton, aged about 20; Andrew Davis , aged about 22; Edward Hubbard, aged about 45; Robert hudson, aged abou t 48; Thomas Statham, aged about 47; Jacobn Vallentine, aged about 25; an d Hendrick Verveale, aged about 20. As the depositions are in part repet itious, they may be summarrezed as follows: "The Dutch party who atte mpted to evict the Bartons seemed to most witnesses to be a 'great compan y', the following being named as present init: (1) Reyer Michelsen (nam e also spelled 'Reyer Meceale', 'Ryer Michaill', 'Ryer Micele', 'Richar d Michaile'), Son of Michaill Bastians, and one of those originally evict ed by Ponton and Waters; (2) Hendrick Keirson (name spelled also 'Kearse ' and 'Kerse'); (3) the unnamed wife of Keirson; (4) Nicholas Stuyvesan t (so spelled in Melick's account but in the Westchester record he is 'St evenson' or 'Stevanson' or 'Stephenson'); (5) Tunis Decay; (6) Johannes K ipp; (7) Michaill Bastians, father of Reyer Michelsen; (8) the unnamed wi fe of Michaill Bastians; (9) Bastian Michailes, another oson of Michail l Bastians; (10) Jacques Tourneur (so spelled by Melick, in Westchester r ecords he is 'Jacobb Turneare' or 'Turneire'); and (11) Hannah Odle, wif e of John Odle (Odell). Mr. Melick says there were others present, but t heir names are not recorded. Hendrick Verveale is in a peculiar position , for he is claimed my Mr. Melick as a Dutch partisan, by he also gave te stimony the next day from the Westchester point of view -- perhaps he wa s taken prisoner and testified under duress, though there is nother to su ggest this. "The Dutch approached both houses, according to the testi mony at the same hour, 'about 3 of the clock', but it would appear that t hey first attacked the house of Elijah Barton, then the house of Elisha B arton, after which the party returned to Elijah's house. ElijahBarton i s not mentioned as present at his house and he did not testify the next d ay. Instead, his father Roger was there, inside, with the door locked . Whether Hendrick Verveale and Jacob Vallentine were also with him insi de is not clerar, though their testimony supports his. Roger was in th e house 'for to keepe possession in for & behyalfe of the Towne of Westch ester' when 'there came a great company of men with Nicholas Bayard of Ne w Yorke and with fforce & Armes did Assault teh Deponant [Roger Barton, S r.] And break open the doore of the house and hailed the deponant out An d one of the Company by the name Tunis Decay punched him with his Elboe s and some of the Company Cryed kick him on the breech & others Cryed dis arme him and send him away. And what they did in the house Afterwards y e Deponant Knoweth not'. Verveale testfied that Roger looded out the wind ow and said to Nicholas Stephenson: 'Keepe of[t]', who had a great pole i n his hand which he pulled out of the fence and forced the doore therewit h intending to break it open but Could not doe it where upon Tunis Deca y Came up to the Said Stevenson and tooke the pole out of his hand & wen t to Nicholas Bayard and Asked Libertie of him if he might breake open th e dooreWhereupon the said bayard replyed Yes, I give you Liberty & the sa id Tunis with force & Armes did breake open the doore and the said Roge r with all his might shutt ye doore againe, whereuponjohannes Kipp did br eak the door open againe and did Enter the house first and Tusis Deca y & Johannes Kipp haled the said Roger out of the house and some the Comp any cryed kick him, Kick him [note Verveale's use of fastidious language ] and Also Cryed disarem him, disarme him'. Vallentine merely dposed tha t he saw Kipp enter the house and 'haled Roger out & tooke his Pitchfor d from him and bad[e him] begone'. Roger's testimony continues: 'Afterwa rds as he was going homwards there came one the Company with a sword [Dec ay?] & would not lett him pass alonge the high way bnut with force & Arme s did Turne him back againe whereby the deponant was forced to take anoth er way through the woods for feare of being waylaid againe'. Obviously, R oger Barton was not then living with his son Elijah but elsewhere. " Having successfully vanquished and old man armed only with a pitchfork, t he Dutch party then appear to have moved quickly on to Elisha barton's ho use, formerly occupied by Reyer Michelsen, where they found Elisha and An drew Davis whithin. Here Richard Michaile (the former occupant) and Tuni s Decay broke open the locked door and evicted both men. 'Further, in br eakeing open the dore ye dore flew open and hitt the deponent [Elisha] o n ye Left Eye and hurt very soore & Afterwards they Locked the doore on y e 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 t o See what Tumult it was at Elijah Bartons house & for to keepe possessio n for & in behalfe of the Towne And the Deponant [Hubbard] came to the ho use and found no doore thereon & Severall Pallasades broke down from th e side of the sd house but found no body & about halfe an houre After, th ere came a great Companby of men, with Nicholas Bayard to said houses an d Nicholas bayard came to the deponant and said what doe youe here and th e deponant, replyed that he was keeping of possession for & in behalfe o f the Towne of Westchester, where upon the said bayard bid him be gone o r Else he would sett him goeing, and the Company fell upon him & held hi m by the haire of the head and the shoulders & kicked him Tunis Decay Dre w his sword at him'. "At this juncture, Thomas Statham and Robert Hud son happened along that way, en route, as they said, to Vallentine Clauso n's [Clawson's] house 'about their owne ocations' [Hudson], 'about thie r owne bussines' [Statham]. Statham suddenly heard a great noise and sai d to Hudson: 'put on Robert for yonder I heare a great Crying out [Hudso n 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 o f the two evicted originally by Ponton and Waters] formerly Lived he & th e said Robert Saw a great Company of men & Nicholas Bayard of New Yorke w ith them & some of the Company kicking and abuseing Edward Hubard & pulli ng and haleing him out of the yard over the fence into the streete & th e Deponant Asked what is here to do are the[y] killing or murdering o f a man where upon Nicholas Bayard came towards ye Deponant and said, wh o is thow Mr Statham yes Replyed ye deponant I am Thomas Statham where up on the said Bayard Enquired of ye Deponant & said what have you to do her e Gett you about your bussines & the Deponant replyed & said he was in th e King's [sic] high way about his bussines & further the said Bayard dema nded of the deponant whose land the was & the deponant replyed westcheste r for ought he knew & part of it his owne by vertyo of his purchase [fro m John Archer in 1678] where upon Byard threatoned the deponant and gav e him Scurrelous Language and said it shoud be worse for him ant yt he wa s a deceitfull fellow & hat better beene at home about his bussines'
Hudson's testimony is substantially the same, but adds the detail that wh ile Hubbard was being abused, bayard turned his back on the scene and the n denied it was Happening.
"Naturally, the Westchester partisans lost no time in seeking legan p rotection. The testimony summarized above was taken by the Justice, Joh n Palmer, on the seventeenth, and on the twentieth, the Sheriff, Benjam
"At this juncture, Thomas Statham and Robert Hudson happened along tha t way, en route, as they said, to Vallentine Clauson's [Clawson's] hous e 'about their owne ocations' [Hudson], 'about thier owne bussines' [Stat ham]. Statham suddenly heard a great noise and said to Hudson: 'put on R obert 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 o f the two evicted originally by Ponton and Waters] formerly Lived he & th e said Robert Saw a great Company of men & Nicholas Bayard of New Yorke w ith them & some of the Company kicking and abuseing Edward Hubard & pulli ng and haleing him out of the yard over the fence into the streete & th e Deponant Asked what is here to do are the[y] killing or murdering o f a man where upon Nicholas Bayard came towards ye Deponant and said, wh o is thow Mr Statham yes Replyed ye deponant I am Thomas Statham where up on the said Bayard Enquired of ye Deponant & said what have you to do her e Gett you about your bussines & the Deponant replyed & said he was in th e King's [sic] high way about his bussines & further the said Bayard dema nded of the deponant whose land the was & the deponant replyed westcheste r for ought he knew & part of it his owne by vertyo of his purchase [fro m John Archer in 1678] where upon Byard threatoned the deponant and gav e him Scurrelous Language and said it shoud be worse for him ant yt he wa s a deceitfull fellow & hat better beene at home about his bussines'
Hudson's testimony is substantially the same, but adds the detail that wh ile Hubbard was being abused, bayard turned his back on the scene and the n denied it was Happening.
"Naturally, the Westchester partisans lost no time in seeking legan p rotection. The testimony summarized above was taken by the Justice, Joh n Palmer, on the seventeenth, and on the twentieth, the Sheriff, Benjami n Collier, had been given a precept to arrest Ryer Michele 'with the res t of the said Com[plices?] aforesaid or Any of them wheresoeuer they ma y be found within your Baylywick", which responsibility he passed on, aft er the manner of superiors, to Mr. Richard Headly 'as my Deputy', but n o arrests were made, doubtless because the Dutch party were careful to ke ep out of reach for the Present.
"On the 31st there was held an 'Enquirey of a Ryott and force Entry & c Lateley made in said [Westchester] County' before 'John Palmer Esqe & W m Richardson Esqe, both justices of the Peace in corum & Benjamin Coller , Esqe, High Sherrife of Said County with his vnder Sherrife &c'. A jur y of 24 'good & Lawfull men of the Baylywick' was impannelled, as follows : Jno Drake, Richard Suite [Sweet?], Moses Hoyte sr., Ebenezer Jones, Tho mas Sherwood, Thomas Pinckney, Robert Bloomer Sr. [fellow fugitive of Rog er barton from Brookhaven], James Mott [foreman], Henry Disbrow Sr., Jn o Nellson, Stephen Sherwood Sr., hackaliah Browne, Timothy Knapp, John ff rost, Jno Miller Sr., Cornelius Seeley, Joshua Webb, Zackeriah Webb, Jose ph Jones, John Griffin, Joseph Boyles, william Gray, and Nicholas bayley.
"Being given the testimony, the Jury brought in the following verdic t:
'The Jury being 24 men finds the Cause yt was brought before them to b e a Ryott, & force Entry made in said Count the 16th Instant by Ryer Mich eaile henrick Keirse and others & vpon and at the houses of Elijah Barto n Roger Barton and Edward Hubbard within said County'.
Note that the jury had been inattentive to the testimony: nothing had bee n said about Edward Hubbard's ro Roger Barton's houses. Whereupon the tw o justices gave judgement to the same and ordered it to be recorded in th e county records, as it was duly recorded by the Register, Joseph Lee, o n 3 Aug. 1688.
"Though Westchester justice had reinstated the Bartons in the two hou ses, their claim ultimately had to be abandoned, for the trustees of th e Town of Westchester were funally induced by the Dutch Church to sig n a quitclaim deed on 23 Oct. 1693, surrendering their rights to the lan d within the Manor of Fordham. Mr. Melick, who presents the story (op. c it, p. 117), misunderstands the Roger Barton who signed this deed as wit ness -- the only witness from the Westchester side -- to be Roger-1 Barto n, but it is almost certain that it was rather Roger-2 Barton, since ther e is reasonabley good probability that Roger-1 Barton did not long survi e the events of July 1688. And attempt to examine this signature to dete rmine wheter it is that of an old man or a relatively young one, not a co nclusive point, of course, has been unsuccessful, owing to the fact tha t the original seems to have been mislaid in the archives of the Collegia te Church of the City of New York. In any case, this quitclaime deed wou ld have no bearing on the title to the plot bought by Roger barton in 167 8, providing that the bond was satisfied. The Dutch record seems to impl y that it was not yet satisfied in 1688, but Roger-2 sold a 102- acre far m in the Manor of Fordham on 9 June 1694, to, of all people, Roger Michel sen! See Westchester Deeds in Comptroller's office, New York, Liber 56 , p. 206. This does not however, quite settle the matter, for it is poss ible that this sale was only an apparent sale and that Roger-2 Barton wa s forced to sell, in order to clear himself and his family of the unsatis fied bond of 1678.
"It should be noted that Mr. Voge seems to have misunderstood the eve nts of 16 July 1688 to be an attack of partisans of the Dutch Church of M anhattan upon the Anglican Church of Westchester, but there is no questio n of involvement of a Westchester church in the record.
"When Roger-1 Barton died is not certain. He is last known to be liv ing at the acknowledgment of the deed on 24 July 1688. He does not appea r n the 1698 Cencus of Westchester when his widow Mary and sons Noah an d Joseph do appear.In the deed-will of 1688 the six sons are called child ren, not sons; so there would seem to be no question of roger's having pr eviously provided for any daughters, and, indeed, there are no deeds reco rded to show that he did care for any possible daughters.
"Mention should be made here however, of a William barton who was i n December 1693 on the Petty Jury of the Court of Sessions (Dixon Ryan Fo x, Minute
Roger married Lounsberry, Mary about 1661 in , , England. Mary was born about 1640 in , , England; died about 1700 in Westchester, Westchester, New York, United States. [Group Sheet]
|
1720 - 1810 (~ 90 years)