USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > Waterbury > The history of Waterbury, Connecticut; the original township embracing present Watertown and Plymouth, and parts of Oxford, Wolcott, Middlebury, Prospect and Naugatuck. With an appendix of biography, genealogy and statistics > Part 13
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58
180
John Warner, Sen.,
90
162
Thomas Judd, Jones,
100
180
Thomas Warner,
100
180
Thomas Judd, Jr.,
100
180
John Welton, Sen.,
80
144
John Newell,
100
180
Thomas Newell,
90
162
A Great Lot for Schools, 150
270
Mr. Jeremiah Peck,
150
270
A Great Lott for the Ministry, 150
Daniel Porter, Sen.,
95
171
BACHELOR PROPRIETORS, cach having £40 propriety :
Abraham Andruss, Jr.
William Hickox,
Thomas Andruss,
Timothy Hopkins,
Benjamin Barnes, Jr.,
Stephen Hopkins,
John Barnes,
John Judd, Jr.,
Thomas Barnes,
William Judd,*
Ebenezer Bronson,
Joseph Lewis,
Isaac Bronson, Jr.,
Daniel Porter, son of Daniel,
John Bronson, son of Isaac,
Samuel Porter,
Joseph Bronson,
Benjamin Richards,
Thomas Bronson,
John Richards, Jr.,
Thomas Clark,
Obadiah Richards, Jr.,
John Gaylord,
Thomas Richards, Sen.,
Joseph Gaylord, Jr.,
Ebenezer Richason,
Ebenezer Hickox,
Israel Richason,
John Hickox,
John Richason,
Joseph Hickox,
Nathaniel Richason,
Thomas Hickox,
Thomas Richason, Jr.,
* William Judd, after 1722, is generally " William Judd, bach. lott," to distinguish him proba- bly, from the original subscriber by that name who forfeited and who was his grandfather.
126
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
David Scott, George Scott, Sen., George Scott, Jr., Jonathan Scott, Jr., Obadiah Scott, Robert Scott,
Samuel Warner, son of Thomas,
George Welton, John Welton, Jr.,
Richard Welton,
Stephen Welton,
Thomas Welton,
Samuel Scott,
John Scovill, Jr.,
1st Propriety Lot,
John Stanley, Jr.,
2ª Propriety Lot,
Samuel Stanley,
3d Propriety Lot,
Lieut. Timothy Stanley, bachelor lot, Stephen Upson, Jr.,
Thomas Upson,
4th Propriety Lot, John Warner, William Scott,
Benjamin Warner, Sen.,
Benjamin Warner, Jr.,
Ephraim Warner,
John Warner, Sen.,* bachelor lot,
5th Propriety Lot, Moses Bronson, + $
6 Propriety Lot.
In the early history of Waterbury, the town, for conven- ience, was divided in four sections. That part of it lying east of the Naugatuck River and north of the Farmington road was the northeast quarter. That part situated east of the river and south of said road was the south east quarter. Of the territory west of the river, that which lay north of the Woodbury road was the northwest quarter, and that south of said road was the southwest quarter. When deeds were given, the quarter in which the land lay was usually named. There was a land measurer for each quarter, whose duty it was to lay out the land within his territory. When a lot was drawn for a division, a certificate or "note " was given by the town clerk to each proprietor or claimant, directed to the town measurer, authorizing him to lay out on a certain pro- priety right and to the person to whom it was given, the agreed number of acres. These "notes" were written on small pieces of paper from three to four inches square, several of which are now in my possession ; some of them dating as far back as 1723. When a piece of land was found which suited the holder, which was often not till the lapse of many years, he got it measured and indorsed upon the paper. There
* John Warner, Sen. bachelor lot-The Sen. is intended to distinguish him from "John War- ner, tailor," (son of Thomas,) who had been made a bachelor and forfeited. The bachelor lot characterizes the lot as distinct from the original propriety of his father, which is also written John Warner, Sen.
t This name is omitted in the subsequent lists.
127
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
must be many of these certificates, given for the later land di- visions, still outstanding and still unsatisfied.
After 1722, the land divisions were frequent. In 1723, one acre on £1 was distributed, (or a " note " given for it ;) in 1727, one acre ; in 1730, forty acres, one rood, and ten rods on £100, in the "north west quarter ;" in 1738-9, one quarter of one acre on £1; in 1747-8, one quarter of an acre; in 1751, one half an aere; in 1759, one half an acre on £1, and five acres "in sequester" on £100; in 1780, one quarter of an acre on £1, and two and a half acres on £100 " in sequester ;" in 1792, one half an acre on £1, and two and a half acres on £100; in 1802, one quarter of an acre on £1. Up to 1745, there had been two hundred and forty-nine acres and twenty rods distributed on each bachelor propriety. In 1780, the number had been increased to four hundred and eleven acres and twenty rods. From this, an approximate estimate may be made of the quantity of land received, in the same time, by each original proprietor, or his representatives.
Before the incorporation of the town, the land grants made by the proprietors appear to have been ratified by the grand committee. Any want of formality on the part of the pro- prietors would, I suppose, have been corrected by this subse- quent ratification. But after Mattatuck was made a town, things were changed. The forms of law must be observed, in order that the titles to lands obtained by grant or division should be valid. These lands were parceled out at public meetings. These meetings are called, in the records, some- times town meetings, at other times proprietors' meetings, (as will be observed from the record-extracts which have been made from time to time.) All the inhabitants of the place took part in them. So long as all who were of a proper age to act were proprietors, as they were for a considerable time after the settlement was begun, the evil might not be se- rious of a town meeting, so called, undertaking to transact proprietors' business. But, after a time, the case was differ- ent. Individuals began to make their appearance who owned no right in the undivided lands. At first, these were the grown up sons of proprietors. They all met in town meetings and voted, not only on the questions which concerned the
128
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
the town alone, but on those which related to the proprietors alone. Such questions were determined by a major vote. No regard was had to the inequality of rights. He who owned £50 propriety had one vote, he who owned £100 had but one, and he who owned nothing had one. After the with- drawal of the committee, there was no power at hand to ratify proceedings and correct mistakes. How long these irregulari- ties were continued, I am not quite sure ; but there appears to have been no separate record of town meetings kept till December, 1698. And for many years afterwards, down cer- tainly to 1713, these meetings occasionally granted lands, &e. At length, the error became manifest, and evil results were apprehended. Men perceived that they held their lands by an insecure tenure. The validity of claims based on town grants and town action was denied. The best interests of so- ciety-those interests connected with the security of landed property-were put in jeopardy. The people of Waterbury were not alone in their embarrassment. Other towns had un- consciously fallen into the same error. In some instances, proprietors attempted to correct the mistake by ratifying what the towns had done. It would not do, however, and the Gen- eral Assembly was at length ealled on to interpose. At the May session, 1723, an act was passed validating " all grants, divisions, or dispositions of common lands made according to ancient custom in town meetings," whether made before, or after, the towns were incorporated. It was, at the same time, enacted, "that no person whatsoever by becoming an inhabit- ant of a town, or by any other means against or without the consent of such proprietors, shall be taken or esteemed to have any estate, title, right, or interest" in the common or undi- vided lands of any towns. It was also enacted, that the pro- prietors, in their meetings, should " have full power, by their major votes, to be reconed according to their interest in the common land, to regulate, improve, manage, and divide such common land, in such manner and proportion as they shall see good."
ME ROYos kommer are hossz under writer Partly for our own satisfaction and for the suntis faction of some others band bout two wein matituloocto in to faruk's to aplantation Dor Fug it Capable % to Sakno nowo sound
John maniEr jours
see page 4 )
Richard omar
Jeremiah Pe.R
From Waterbury 91. May. 12 saat Brown soen ( see page 205)
Samvoll Rick- 07(8) John Pfandly 1689; Boniamin Banany
Timothy Stan Ly
rich and Confer 189) John Hopkins: Clash
Thomas y Y y us Iis rc. Thomy fult Rogus for. John good Clark John Richards John Southmaye (Perk ejforum warner: John Scouille Ceramica Beck 17/9/10
stilliam vogo hr William Hickcok Thomas hick con 337 grace Brunton)
Thomas Chungon Tut
Thomas Clarke
Timothy Hopkins 1927
129
HISTORY OF WATERURY.
CHAPTER XI.
PERSONAL NOTICES OF THE FIRST SETTLERS OF WATERBURY.
OF the thirty-four proprietors of Waterbury, who became settlers before 1688, all, except four, were from Farmington. Abraham Andruss, Sen., was from Fairfield, Joseph Gaylord was originally from Windsor, John Hopkins from Hartford and Benjamin Jones from - They were all farmers. Some of them had trades-such as are in most demand in new settlements-to which they devoted a part of their time, par- ticularly when the weather was unfavorable for farm work. There were among them a few men of substance ; but gener- ally they were in moderate circumstances. None was rich, none very poor. All labored with their hands. As to family and station, they were from the great "middle class"-that which lies at the foundation of society and which perpetuates the race .* Several were honorably, or rather respectably, connected, but there were no patrician families. Not one of them bore a name which was particularly distinguished in the early history of the colonies, with the exception of Hopkins, the town miller; and he is not known to have been a relation of Gov. Hopkins. I have not succeeded very well in tracing their origin. Farther investigations will discover more facts, undoubtedly; but I have rarely been able to track them, in the ascending line, beyond Hartford, or the old towns of Connec- ticut. We may rest assured, however, that they had an anti-
* Mr. Hollister, in his History of Connecticut, (Vol. I, Chapter XX,) has taken some pains to show that the early planters of the Colony were of good descent and belonged to the better classes of the English people. In a certain sense I admit this. But it should be remembered that no other classes leave a permanent posterity. The vile, the dissolute, the infirm, the thrift- less, those of mean endowments, mental and bodily, die out by a natural law, leaving few im- mediate and no remote descendants. They perish from want, violence and internal rottenness. Their numbers are kept good only by accessions from without. Coming in contact with a stronger and better race, they are overrun and disappear. And it is well for humanity that it is so. Thus, by an invincible law of nature, " the better classes,"-not the "landed gentry " ne_ cessarily-but those of sound mental, moral and bodily constitution-become the true and only progenitors of a people. Thus, virtue conquers vice, and strength overcomes weakness.
9
130
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
quity, and a very hoary one too. I have not consulted books of heraldry, partly, if you please, because I expected to make no discoveries in that quarter. I do not suppose the ancestors of the Judds, the Hickoxes, the Bronsons and the Weltons ever "bore arms;" and if the fact were otherwise, it would not make an unworthy descendant respectable. It would not save him from the pillory, or the halter. Those who are ambitions for coats of arms, may find them in New York, on sale, cheaper than broadcloth .*
At an early period, there was a law of the colony requiring marriages, births and deaths to be recorded by the town clerk, with penalties for neglect or delay.] This law, however, seems to have been very imperfectly observed in Waterbury. Dur- ing John Stanley's clerkship, no record of these things was kept, or at least, none has been preserved. The only item of the kind entered by him, is the birth of his son Timothy, in 1689. Thomas Jndd, Jr., was made register in 1696, and in 1699, he appears to have commenced a record of marriages, births and deaths, and made it retrospective to some extent. If the male head of a family was then living in Waterbury, he, in some cases, gave an account of his children born in the town, with the date, and in a few instances of those born be- fore he joined the settlement. Thus, in the case of Abraham Andruss, Sen's children, the record begins with the birth, (place not mentioned) of the first child, in 1672; while in the instance of Isaac Bronson's children, it commences with the fourth child, being the first born in Waterbury, in 1680. It is impossible to discover from written evidence, the date of the first birth from European parents that occurred in the town; but the first registered birth was that of Rebecca, daughter of Thomas and Mary Richason, April 27, 1679. She m. John Warner, son of John, afterwards a deacon of the Westbury church. Richard, son of John and Mary Welton, registered by
* Since the above was written, I have looked into Burke's Encyclopedia of Heraldry, (Lond., 1844.) I find there the following names, (to wit :) Andrews, Barnes, Branson, or Braunson, Carrington, Clark, Hancock, Hiccox, Hopkins, Jones, Judd, Lewis, Newell, Peck, Porter, Rich- ards, Richardson, Scott, Southmead, Stanley, Upton, Walton, Warner.
Any one who is interested in this information and is out at the elbows can pursue the inquiry. It may be he will find something that will fit him-a " coat" on which are blazoned his for- gotten, and with which he may cover his dishonored, " arms."
2.
131
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Mr. Southmayd, was born "sometime in March, 1680." If this date is intended for 1680, new style, as it probably is, Richard Welton may be regarded, till evidence to the contrary is shown, as the first male child born in the Naugatuck Valley, above Derby. Family tradition concurs with the indications of the record.
Marriages in olden times were celebrated by the governor, deputy governor, assistants, or commissioners. Clergymen rarely performed the ceremony before 1700. Baptisms took place a few days after birth; sometimes, when a magistrate or minister lived in the village, "immediately after," as the old record saitlı.
Until 1666, wills were probated and estates settled in the Court of Magistrates. At this date, the several counties, four in number, were established, and this business was given to the County courts. It was continued in these courts till the coun- ties were divided into probate districts. Waterbury at first belonged to Hartford County, and its probate business was done in the County Court of Hartford till 1719. At this period the town was anxexed to the district of Woodbury. It thus continued till 1779, when the Waterbury District was es- tablished. On the probate record of Hartford, Woodbury and Waterbury, I have been obliged to rely for many facts relating to the early settlers of Waterbury.
ABRAHAM ANDRUSS, SEN.
The name is usually spelled Andrews, though rarely or never on our record. He was the son of Thomas Andrews, who re- moved from Hartford to Bankside, in Fairfield, and who had four sons-John, Abraham, Jeremiah and Thomas-and six daughters. His will bore the date of 1662.
Abraham Andruss, Sen., was one of the thirty who signed the articles of 1674. He had an £80 propriety, and was among the earliest settlers of Mattatuck. His name is on all the lists of those who had early divisions of fence. He and Timothy Stanley were the first townsmen, or selectmen of the town, they being spoken of as holding this office in 1681. He sub- sequently occupied the same position in 1690, 1692, 1706, 1707, 1711, 1716. He was town surveyor in 1700 and afterwards;
(
5
132
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
a deputy to the General Court at the May session, in 1712; one of the signers of the agreement to pay Mr. Peck £60 per year, in 1689, and a frequent member of important committees appointed by the town and proprietors. On the whole, he was a man of considerable note among the first settlers of Water- bury.
Andruss had a "house lot" Nov., 1687, at the west end of the village, near where the late Dr. Buckley lived. It was bounded east on John Welton, west on " a great lot," (the cor- ner lot.) Nothing is said of a house. The lot was conveyed, April 18th, 1696, to David Scott, and afterwards to Robert Scott, Thomas Judd, Jr. and John Southmayd. There is no house mentioned in any of the conveyances.
January 22d 1680 [?] the town granted to abraham andrus senor a peic of land buting on ye mill Riuer and on ye common fene aganst sd andruses three acre lot prouided it do not pregedis high wayes and he build a hous or set up a tan yard .*
This lot was recorded in 1687, as four acres, and is described as butting north on the common, easterly on the river, south- erly on the common, westerly on the top of the hill. "March 10, 1704," it was again recorded, and is mentioned as contain- ing 3} aeres, with a dwelling house, " butting south on the com- mon fence, north and west on the highway, east at the southeast corner coming to the river, and at the northeast corner falling four rods and a half from the mill river, so cattle may pass' safely over the river." It was situated below the mill, imme- diately below the present bridge, on the west side of the river, bounding on the river at the lower corner, and falling four and a half rods from it, next the road which came from the village. From the fact that a tan-yard is mentioned in the original grant, it is probable that Andruss was a tanner.
In 1717-8, when it became necessary to provide for declin- ing years, Andruss conveyed to his youngest son, Thomas, lands, &c., as follows-(the deed is signed by a mark, and bears the date of January 4th, 1717) :
* But few of the land titles of the first proprietors of Waterbury, acquired in the first years of the settlement, can be traced to specific grants from the Colony's committee, or the proprietors, or to land divisions, or to any other valid source. This is particularly the fact with the house lots. Those of the present generation who hold the lands referred to must rely for the good- ness of their titles on the validating acts of the Assembly.
133
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
For and in concediration of my son thomas andrus who now lives with me tacking the care of my self and my wife while we live unles my wife should be left by me and mary again and finding of us with a sutable and comfortable main- tenance and tacking the whole care of us both while we live both in sixnes and in * helth and for the loue and good will which I do bare towards my son thomas * * I giue him the whole of my teame and all the tackling there unto belonging both of Iron and wood and all tools that I have that is nesary to carry on hus- bandry work *
* * * I give unto my son thomas all the lands I stand posest of within the bounds of Waterbury with the bulding fencing orcharding thare to belonging and the whole of my propriety in the undeuided land he to tacke posesion of the one half now and the other half at my deceas [&c.]
When the new meeting house was seated, in 1729, " Good- man Andruss and his wife" were placed in the seat next the pulpit, on the west side, opposite the minister, this high posi- tion being due to their age and worth. But the poor man died soon after, or before December of the same year, he being the last (who settled in Waterbury) of the original thirty sub- seribers. His inventory, taken in Dec., 1731, amounted to £36,15s.
Abraham Andruss married Rebecca, a daughter of John Carrington, also an original proprietor. Their children were :-
1. Rebecca ; born Dec. 16, 1672; married about 1696, William Hickox.
2. Mary ; b. March 10, 1674-5; m. April, 1693, Daniel Warner, son of Daniel Warner of Farmington.
3. Hannah ; b. Sep. 8, 1678 ; m. "Zopher Northrup."
4. Abraham ; b. Oct. 14, 1680. He was admitted as a bachelor proprietor March 18, 1701; m. Nov. 5, 1702, Hannah, daughter of Thomas Stephens of Mid- dletown, by whom he had a son born in Waterbury, Sep. 6, 1703. He had a house and half an acre and twelve rods of ground in Feb. 1702-3, butted on all sides on highway, and situated, apparently, west and in front of the old mill, between "Union Square " and the Scovill Manuf'g Co's rolling mill. He remained, how- ever, only long enough to secure his propriety right. March 12, 1705-6, he sold his place to his father, and received in payment certain lands in Farmington, to which town he had already removed. He had five children born there between 1705 and 1712. Afterwards he turned up in Saybrook, where he was denominated " doctor." He was there in 1733.
5. Sarah ; b. March 16, 1683-4; m. Joseph Lewis, and d. March 6, 1773.
6. Rachel ; b. July 11, 1686 ; m. Samuel Orvice.
7. John; b. July 16, 1688. He m. Martha Warner and removed early to Far- mington, where he had several children. He was there in 1710, 1715, 1723, and had returned to Waterbury in 1724, where his seventh and eighth children were born-the last in 1728. He lived in the southeast quarter, in 1730, near Judd's Meadow. In 1748-9 he was an inhabitant of Woodbury.
8. Thomas ; b. " March 6, 1694." He became a bachelor proprietor in 1715, and married Mary, d. of John Turner of Hartford, Nov. 2, 1725, by whom he had
·
131
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
three daughters born in Waterbury, the last in 1734. In 1731, he exchanged with Stephen Kelsey his house and lands for a house and sixty-nine acres on the Wood- bury road, near the Woodbury line. These last he sold, in 1735, to Thomas Mathews, Jr. of Wallingford, to which place he removed soon after.
ABRAHAM ANDRUSS, JR., OR COOPER.
He was called junior because he was younger than his name- sake, the term in those days having no reference to family relationship. The term cooper designated his occupation. He was a son of John (and Mary) Andrews. The father was an early settler of Farmington, and one of the first (and non " fulfilling ") signers of the articles for the settlement of Wa- terbury. He had seven sons, John, Abraham, Samuel, Dan- iel, Joseph, (who signed the articles, but never came to Water- bury,) Stephen, Benjamin, and three daughters, Mary, (the mother of Benjamin Barnes,) Hannah, (who married Obadiah Richards,) and Rachel. He died in 1681, (his wife in May, 1694,) leaving legacies to several of his grandchildren, includ- ing John and Abraham Andruss and John Richards.
Abraham Andruss, Jr., or cooper Andruss, (born Oct. 31, 1648, baptized, April 2d, 1654,) had a £100 propriety and subscribed the articles "in the room of John Judd." His name is first mentioned in the allotment of the fourth division of fence. He was one of those who were declared, Feb. 6th, 1682, to have forfeited their rights. On promise of " submis- sion and reformation," however, he was again put in possession of his allotments. His name is on the list of proprietors in 1688, and on all subsequent lists. Nothing in particular is known of his standing. His house and a house lot of two acres were on the north corner of West Main and Bank streets, butting west on Daniel Porter and south on common land. He married Sarah, a daughter of Robert Porter. They both joined the church in Farmington, Jan. 3d, 1686. He died May 3d, 1693, leaving his widow pregnant. His inventory amounted to £177, 17s. 3d .; and the estate was distributed, March 20th, 1694-5, according to law-one third of the movables and the use of the real estate during life, to the widow, a double portion of the remainder to the oldest son, Abraham, and equal shares to the other children. The family all remov- ed to Danbury, the widow having married James Benedict of
135
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
that place. In March, 1707, she relinquished her right to the real estate in Waterbury, and the homestead was taken by the eldest son, Abraham.
Andruss children, all mentioned in the settlement of the estate in 1707-8, were, as far as known:
1. Sarah ; baptized in Farmington March 9th, 1683-4, and m. Thomas Raymond of Norwalk, where they were both living in 1723.
2. Abraham ; baptized July 17, 1687,(?) in Farmington.
3. Mary ; baptized in Farmington in 1689; m. James Benedict of Danbury.
4. Benjamin.
5. Robert .*
Andruss propriety was owned by William Judd, in 1721, and, in June of the same year, was sold to Samuel Whittlesey of Wallingford, for £42.
BENJAMIN BARNES.
His father, Thomas Barnes, was an original proprietor and settler of IIartford and a soldier in the Pequot war of 1637. For his services in that war, he received, in 1671, from the colonial Assembly, a grant of land of fifty acres. When the settlement of Farmington was commenced, he became a pro- prietor and settled in that place. He was appointed a ser- geant of the train-band in 1651, and became a member of the church in 1653. His wife was Mary, daughter of Thomas Andrews. He died in 1688. His children were :--
1. Benjamin; b. 1653. 2. Joseph ; baptized 1655 ; m. July 8, 1684, Abigail Gibbs, and d. Jan. 23, 1740-1. 3. Sarah ; m. John Scovill. 4. Thomas ; m. June, 1690, Mary Jones, and became a deacon. 5. Ebenezer ; m. April 8, 1690, Debo- rah Orvis or Orvice, and died 1756.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.