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 3
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
2
18
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
importance have been laid out until about the commencement of the present century. That part of Cook street, however, which lies between Main and Grove streets, previously to 1703, ran farther west than at present. It must have wound round between the hills west of Lyman W. Coe's house, coming into Grove street, probably a few rods west of the present junction, where the Brunt Hill road (Cook above Grove) commences. It passed west far enough to leave a house lot of four acres, owned by Benjamin Warner, between the road and the brow of the hill just east of the Little Brook, near the house owned by Andrew Bryan. In the conveyances of this four acre lot after it went out of the possession of Warner, it is de- scribed as in two pieces, the larger one butting east, and the smaller west, on the highway. The town action, relating to this new road up the Brook is seen in the following extract from the town record :
January: 25th: 1702-3 ye town with benimin worner exchanged yt highway on ye west sd worners hous lot next beniamin barns to let sd worner haue yt hiway for a three rods highway throu his lot on ye hill sid on ye east sd his lot next ye litle brook and sd worner is to extend southword in ye frunt of his lot to ye sixt porst of beniamin barnses fenc yt is now set and to extend northward in ye deui- dent loyn next barns as fur as sd barnses lot gos and to run to his own north east conr not to pergedis [&c.]
Probably when the town was planned and the highways staked out, there was no road contemplated in the place of that which runs diagonally from Mr. Coe's, past Charles D. Kings- bury's to the east end of Grove street ; but subsequently, and before long, its convenience became apparent. It is mention- ed in connection with the grant of George Scott's (after- wards Benjamin Warner's) house lot, in December, 1687, and referred to " as the highway that runs over the Little Brook." After this road was made, the thought of a new and better road north, up the brook, doubtless suggested itself.
The road which now runs from Bank, across South Main, and up Union, to the top of the hill, being a continuation of Grand, seems not to have existed in the early history of the town. This appears from the descriptions of the home lots on the easterly side of Bank street, which were bounded west,
19
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
but not north or south, on highway. South Main street, so called, was laid out and made as a country road, not till after 1800; but there was, from an early date, a passage, called the Pine Hill road, from the south end of Bank street, near where Meadow street commences, running southeasterly in the general direction of Meadow street,* within the common fence, to the Mad River crossing, near the present bridge, and so on to Judd's Meadow, (Naugatuck.) A branch from this passage, communicating with what is now Union street, and the corn mill, (Scovill Manufacturing Co's Rolling Mill,) extended northeasterly, bounding in the rear, or on the southeast, somne of the Bank street home lots above mentioned.
I have been unable to find (as already suggested) any refer- enee at an early date, to what is now Union street, from Bank to Elm. I have not identified it as bounding any of the home lots, or any grants of land. And yet, it was probably includ- ed in the original plan of the village. A road, or path, such as I have referred to in the preceding paragraph, connecting the corn mill with the Pine Hill road running down the river, was required for the convenience of the people. I obtain no certain knowledge of it, however, till March 13th, 1730, when a highway was laid out, (which has been elosed within the last thirty years,) beginning near the top of the hill, a little west of Elm street, " a little below Hopkins' Plain bars, from that highway that runs by the common fence, to that that goes to Judd's Meadow," at a stake on the brow of the hill, in the corner of Thomas Porter's lot, running across said lot south- wardly fourteen rods, then seven rods, "at the bottom of the hill within Deacon Clark's fence, where it empties into said highway that goes to Judd's Meadow, two rods wide." It came out near Charles Bronson's house. It was to be a " pent road," that is, to be closed at its upper end with a gate or bars. Its object appears to have been to shorten the distance to the mill, for the southern and southwestern inhabitants.
Probably the survey above referred to is, for the most part,
* The passage referred to, at the time the turnpike was made, (1801,) came into the latter near the house of John M. Stocking, (on the map.)
20
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
only a resurvey of an old road-the same which has been allud- ed to as extending in the rear of the Bank street home lots, bound- ing them on the east. Union street, within the present century, came into South Main from the east, farther north than now, at a point nearly opposite the continuation of Grand street.
Mill street, below the old mill, which thirty years ago ran close to the river, down to the place occupied by the Hotchkiss & Merriman Manufacturing Co's Factory, did not exist at an early period. The lot between the mill-dam and the river crossing, bounded easterly on the river, in 1713. Abraham Andruss' house lot next the river, below the crossing, bounded on the river in 1687 and 1704.
The following extract relates to that part of Mill street which runs from the old corn mill to East Main street, by George W. Welton's house :-
Water bury March ye 9th 1720 we whose name are under writen ware formerly apointed accomety with leftenante Judd by the town of Waterbury to lay out high- ways to the mill in persuante thare too we laid out a high way from the Rode that goes to farmingtown opposite against the south easte corner of the hous lot that i's now thomas hikcox so to the mill foure rods wide at that ende next be fore mentioned rode and something wider towards the mill buting east upon doctor porters land and west upon the land that stephen hopkins hous now stands on
BENJAMIN BARNES
mark
Comety
STEPHEN 2 UBSON Sen.
his
From another and earlier record, it would seem that the above was a re-survey of an old highway, or else that the committee previously appointed to lay it out neglected to do it. A copy of the record is given below. The old road re- ferred to, which was to be changed, bore off more to the east than the present one.
Desember 8 1712 de [deacon] thomas Judd abraham andrus s' Stuen upson was chosen a commity to run a hi way north from the mill between John hopkins and doc danll porter in order to chang it for land on west sid the mill plan of sd hopkins and mak return to the town
" The mill path," so called in the early records, now Cole street, which runs obliquely from East Main by Mrs. Zenas Cook's house (on the map) to the mill, was not apparently an
21
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
original street, though it existed from an early period. I find it first alluded to in 1694, in connection with John Richards' house and house lot.
I believe there is no early mention made of that part of Cherry street which runs north and south, except incidentally. In December, 1724, the town granted John Bronson liberty to run the lines by his house in a certain manner; but he was "to leave a high way six rods wide against his house." His house (then the only one upon the street) stood just north of Solomon B. Miner's, (on the map.) Cherry street, at that point, was once much wider than now.
The upper end of Cherry street, that portion of it which runs westerly across the Great Brook and terminates at North Main, was laid out by Daniel Southmayd, Dec. 1st, 1746, though doubtless it existed as a passage long before. It is described as " a highway at the upper end of Lt. John Bron- son's saw mill lot, beginning at the highway that goes by said Bronson's new barn, the first corner being at James Nichols' southeast corner, which is the first corner of the highway, running west twenty one rods to said Nichols' southwest corner, which is the northwest corner of said highway, bounded north on said Nichols' land, three rods wide, the bounds being on the north side."
Grove street was surveyed or re-surveyed, in two parts, Dec. 21, 1752. The east part began at Deacon Thomas Bron- son's clay pit pasture, (corner of North Main and Grove streets,) and ran west thirty-two rods to the southwest corner of Isaac Nichols' Little Brook pasture, terminating at the road that " goes north from Obadiah Worner's barn to Robert Johnsons house," (Cook street continued.) It was four rods wide. The west part began at the highway last mentioned "at the South East corner of William Adams lot," and ran west one hundred and sixteen rods " to the highway that goes by Serg. Thomas Barnes house," (Willow street.) It was three rods wide.
This highway doubtless existed from the beginning of the settlement. The original home-lots on West Main street were bounded on it on the north.
Church street was laid out May 5th, 1S06. It ran south forty rods and was two rods wide.
22
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
The following action of the grand committee related to East Main street .- (Joseph Gaylord lived on the north side of the street, on the corner of North Main.)
Farmington November 27 1679: A meeting of the comitte for mattatuck Itt is determined that high way layed out by Lt. Samucll Steele att the east end of the town plat att mattatuck running eastward out of said town plat being thre rod wid shall always be and remain for publick and common vse which is between Joseph Gaylords lott and a hous lott reserved for such inhabitants as shall her- after be entertained
I have given above all which I have been able to gather, concerning the old highways comprehended in the original plan of the town center. There is nothing on record regard- ing the most ancient roads as they were first laid out. What- ever we know is obtained from the re-surveys, incidental re- marks and the very imperfect memoranda, and often erroneous descriptions of the home lots, and the early land grants, which " butted " on highways.
In Feb. 1702-3, it was ordered by the town " that the high- ways layd out be recorded :" but this order appears to have been wholly neglected till 1716.
The home-lots of the first settlers of Mattatuck were upon the central streets, most of them on that running east and west, a few on the one running north and south. The lots on the outside streets, and those that were situated most distant from. the center, were taken up at later dates, as there was occasion for them. They were staked out by the committee, and those first disposed of, distributed by lot, in the way the old town plot lots were designed to be, without reference to amount of proprietorship. They varied in size according to the desirable- ness of the locality, and "the make of the ground," natural disadvantages being compensated by additional acres. A majority of them contained two acres, but some had four, one five, and others only one and a half acres. Some eligible lots were reserved, and many outside ones, not so desirable, were left for future settlers. These were disposed of by grant-by the committee, at first, and subsequently by the proprie- tors.
Around the " Green," (Centre Square,) on all sides and so
23
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
west as far as the house of the late Bennet Bronson, the houses were numerous, the land having been all taken up and built upon, except a traet near the present Episcopal Church. The lots on the south side of the road, except one at the east end, and those on the north side, except four at the east end, extend- ed through to the back streets. Previously to about 1700, there were no dwellings east of Dr. Jesse Porter's, north of C. D. Kingsbury's, south of a house on Bank street, marked on the map, "Timothy Ball," and west of the late B. Bron- son's. On the plan of the old town center, I have entered the names of the first settlers. When the block is omitted, it is to be understood that no house is expressly mentioned, (in some cases from inadvertence, probably,) as existing on the lot.
There are no land records of Waterbury, attempting descrip- tion, that bear date earlier than 1687, immediately after the incorporation of the town. The lands granted by the Assem- bly's committee were not recorded at the time; and those which were afterwards distributed by the proprietors, in pub- lic meetings, are not defined, except in the most general terms. For instance, in 1684, the proprietors granted to Daniel Porter "four acers in ye wigwam swamp as near ye loer end as may be so as to have the breath [breadth] of ye swamp." But in the year named, (1687,) something more was attempted. A record was made of each man's lots, and particularly of his house lot. This was made both in Hartford (on the colony records) and in Waterbury. The description is of the brief- est sort, and in the most general terms. Boundaries are given, and the estimated number of acres ; and whether the title was obtained by purchase, or special grant. If a deed had been taken, the date of the signing and acknowledgment is given, with the name of the commissioner, or justice. These record- ed and very brief accounts, are afterwards referred to as evi- dence of title. On these chiefly, I have been obliged to rely in my attempts to locate the early planters of Waterbury. They are often so indefinite, so lacking in detail, so erroneous indeed, that it is a matter of the utmost difficulty to make anything out of them. Distances are very rarely given, and points of compass, never, except in the most general way.
24
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
East is sometimes inadvertently used for west, and north for sonth, and vice versa. The settlers often bought and sold, and exchanged houses and lots, and this circumstance has increas- ed the difficulty of ascertaing the earliest dwelling places of individuals.
CHAPTER III.
DELINQUENT SUBSCRIBERS.
OF the thirty original subscribers to the articles of settle- ment, thirteen never became permanent proprietors of Water- bury. Their names follow :
JOHN WARNER, Sen., DANIEL WARNER,
JOHN ANDRUSS, ABRAHAM BRONSON, THOMAS GRIDLEY, JOHN PORTER, RICHARD SEYMOUR.
WILLIAM HIGASON, SAMUEL GRIDLEY, JOHN LANKTON, JOHN JUDD, SAMUEL JUDD, WILLIAM JUDD.
John Warner, Sen., and Daniel Warner, father and son, whose names are in the first group, both intended to join the planters of Mattatuck, but died when about to remove, in 1679, in Farmington. The place of the father seems to have been filled by his son, Thomas Warner ; while the death of the son gave rise to the following action of the committee, which con- ferred his rights upon his widow.
25
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Farmington, November 26, 1679,
Where as Daniel Worner with his Family were upon the Remove to Mattatnek, And on that Juneture of time the Divine providenee of God hath Removed the gd Daniell out of the Land of the Land of* the Living. Out of compassion to his Relict & children left behind him, we do Grant the sd Reliet shall hold her Allottments Firm and Good to her self and children not with standing any thing Contained In any Former Article to the Contrary, only advising her Self and Re- latives that a Dwelling house be Erected there with all possible Speed, and that Shee Inhabit there or some sufficient person to manage he[r] Lands & accommo- dations upon the place.
L By us John Talcott John Wadsworth Nicholas Olmstead [Samuel Steel
A true Record of the Original
Attest John Southmayd, Clerk.
It appeared early that there were several of the original sign- ers of the articles who had changed their minds, and had no longer any intention of becoming permanent settlers of Matta- tuck. They made a declaration to this effect, and the com- mittee permitted other applicants to take their places. There were five of these persons who abandoned the enterprise at the ontset, or in the first season, 1677, before any houses were erected. No more than one of these is heard of as having been with the first planters of this town. Their names are in the second group.
John Andruss. Benjamin Jones was accepted as a proprie- tor, in his stead. The name will again be mentioned in con- nection with his son, Abraham, an early settler. He was one of the committee of the proprietors, appointed May twenty- first, 1677, to take into consideration the expedieney of remov- ing the town site.
Abraham Bronson was a younger brother of John and Isaac Bronson, original signers and settlers. He was one of the as- signees named in the assignment of the first Indian deed to certain persons, " inhabitants of Mattatuck." This was Sept. 10, 1777 ; so that he would seem to have been one of the first
So in the Record.
26
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
company of planters. But he sickened of the enterprise, and his place was filled Jan. 15, 1677-8, by John Scovill.
Thomas Gridley, of Farmington, was a son of Thomas Grid- ley of Hartford and Farmington, and brother of Samuel, an- other signer. His name is among those of the "eighty-four Proprietors of Farmington," in 1673. He was born 1650, and died in 1742. The vacancy made by his failure was supplied by Joseph Gaylord, Jan. 15th, 1677-8.
John Porter, of Farmington, was probably a son of Robert, a subsequent settler and proprietor. David Carpenter was accepted for him, Jan. 15th, 1677-8. The family will again be mentioned.
Richard Seymour, of Farmington, was a son of Richard Seymour, of Hartford, Farmington and Norwalk. He was the leader of the settlement which was made at the Great Swamp, (afterwards Kensington,) to which place he removed in 1685. He was killed by the falling of a tree in 1710. His wife died in 1712. His sister Mercy married John Steel, the father of Ensign Samuel Steel, one of the State's Committee ; and his sister Mary married, in 1644, Thomas Gridley, another signer. Benjamin Barnes was accepted in his place, Jan. 15th, 1677, (1678, new style.)
The six persons in the third group all had meadow allot- ments and divisions of the common fence assigned them, at. different times, from 1678 to 1681 ;* and from this circum- stance it is rendered probable that they were, for a time at least, residents at Mattatuck, with a prospect of securing their proprietary rights and becoming permanent settlers.
William Higason. His name is on the list of proprietors of Farmington, 1672. He was born in 1648, and had several children-Sarah, Margaret, Elizabeth, Mary. The last, mar- ried Clark Carrington, a son of John, an original propri- etor of Waterbury. Edmund Scott, Jr., was accepted for him and took his allotments, about 1680.
Samuel Gridley, a " smith " and "trader," was a son of
* The four first divisions of fence, of which a record has been preserved, were made between these dates.
27
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
Thomas, and elder brother of Thomas above mentioned. He was born in 1647, and died 1712, having had eleven children. Thomas Newell, Sen. was made a proprietor in his place, prob- ably before 1680.
John Lankton, or Langdon, was a deacon of the church in Farmington. He was one of the committee raised in May, 1677, to inquire into the propriety of removing the town site. He was a son-in-law of Thomas Gridley, had several children, and died in 1689. His rights as proprietor of Mattatuck were declared forfeited, "Feb. 5th, 1680," and were afterwards con- ferred on John Hopkins, the miller.
John Judd and Samuel Judd, were sons of Dea. Thomas Judd, of Farmington, to be hereafter mentioned. They neg- lected to comply with the articles of settlement, and, after a long indulgence on the part of the committee, their allotments were " condemned," Feb. 6th, 1682. (1682-3.) The commit- tee accepted of Abraham Andruss, 2d, or Jr., in the place of John Judd; and at a later period, 1687, Samuel's right was bestowed on his brother Philip.
William Judd was an elder brother of John and Samuel, above mentioned-a man of substance, of much influence and greatly esteemed. He was the most distinguished of the Judds, and promised to be the leading man among the plant- ers of Mattatuck He is usually called Sergeant William Judd, he having been confirmed sergeant of the Farmington train band by the County Court of Hartford, Dec. 4th, 1679. He was one of a committee to apportion the fence among the proprietors, appointed Jan. 15th, 1677-8, and was selected for a similar service, March 11th, 1678-9. At the same date, he was chosen, in company with Lieut. Steele and John Stanley, to lay out "the three acre lots " to the settlers, and was allow- ed the privilege of having his own lot laid out adjoining his house lot. From the nature of the duties assigned him, and the way he is spoken of, I conclude that he was an inhabitant of Mattatuck at the dates mentioned, with the intention of remaining ; but some how the time allowed for building, &c., ran out, and on complaint, he along with other delinquents, was declared, under date of "Feb. 5th, 1680," to have for- feited all his rights. Here is the action of the committee :
28
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
In consideration of some of those persons that haue had alotments granted Att mattatuck we have heard the alygations layed in against them and doe determin that deacon John langton william Judd and dauid carpenter haue forfited all their rights and tittles to those alotments granted to them att mattatuck not hauing at- tended [to] those articles to which thay haue subscribed.
Afterwards, however, William Judd's name again appears as a subscriber to the articles, he obligating himself to erect a dwelling, and to settle in the place, with his family, within one year after subscription. May 18th, 1680, he was at the head of a committee, on the part of Mattatuck, to settle bounds, with Derby, and a little later, June 9th, 1680, to set- tle bounds with Woodbury. A second time, however, he was a defaulter, and at length, his lands and rights of land were given, by the proprietors, to his son Thomas. His name dis- appears from the record after 1681. His house lot appears to have been on Willow street, a little north of the dwelling of the late Bennet Bronson.
Of those who signed the articles after a settlement had been commenced, five got faint hearted, or for some other reason, failed to secure their propriety rights. They are nam- ed below. All had meadow allotments and divisions of fence except the first.
Thomas newell sen Joseph Andruss David Carpenter Benjamin Judd John Root
Thomas Newell, Sen., was an original settler of Farming- ton, and the father of John and Thomas Newell, proprietors. He was one of the petitioners to the General Court, in 1673, for liberty to plant a colony in Mattatnek; but there is no evidence that he took any steps in the way of forwarding the enterprise after subscribing the articles. The "Thomas New- ell " whose name appears about 1679 as having fence assigned him to build, appears to have been his son, who took his place and became a proprietor.
Joseph Andruss, I suppose to have been the fourth son of John Andruss of Farmington, another signer, and younger brother of Abraham Andruss, a proprietor. I know nothing
29
HISTORY OF WATERBURY.
of him except that he had a meadow allotment, and a divis- ion of fence assigned him in 1680.
David Carpenter. There were two persons by this name in Farmington, father and son. The above is presumed to have been the son. He was born in 1647, and married Han- nah, a daughter of Richard Bronson of Farmington. He was accepted as a proprietor, Jan. 15th, 1677-8, in the place of John Porter, but his right was not declared forfeited till Feb. 5, 1680-1. Ile removed to New London.
Benjamin Judd probably subscribed the articles and joined the planters of Mattatuck, within the first year of the settlement. He was a brother of William, John and Samuel, and a son of Dea. Thomas Judd, of Farmington. Jan. 15th, 1677-8, he was appointed " to call out the proprietors in their turns to mend the highways." Feb. 6th, 1680-1, he was selected by the committee to lay out land which was granted to the mill. At the same date he was allowed an addition to his propriety so as to "mack it in valeu of one hundred pounds," and land was granted him as follows:
Also we doe grant Benjamin Judd shall have added to the north end of his House Lott some land to build one always prouided that the highway that runeth through the Towne in towne in that place shall be and remain four rods and a half wide to be layd out to him by the forsaid persons.
At a later period, he signed a petition addressed to the committee, "in reference to herding of cattell," which was answered April 5th, 1682-3. Before the date of this answer, however, (Feb. 6th, 1682-3,) his allotments were all " con- demned" for not building according to articles, &c. But a year afterwards, Jan. 10th, 1683, he was allowed the " prive- ledg of reseasing" (entering again into the possession of) his allotments, on the conditions prescribed by the "act of Feb. 6th, 1682," which required a residence of " full four yers in a stedy way and manor," with his family. After this he is heard of no more in Mattatuck.
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.