USA > Massachusetts > Barnstable County > Chatham > History of Chatham, Massachusetts : formerly the Constablewick or Village of Monomoit ; with maps and illustrations and numerous genealogical notes > Part 7
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
Under this order no action appears to have been taken, as in the following February Mr. Nickerson laid the whole case before the Commissioners of the King, Col. Richard Nicolls, Sir Robert Carr, George Cartwright, Esq., and Samuel Maverick, Esq., who were then holding sessions at Plymouth. These Commissioners had been sent out from England with a part of the English fleet, with authority to reduce the Dutch at Manhattan to submission and "to visit the several Colonies of New England, to hear and determine complaints and appeals in matters civil, military and crim- inal, and to provide for the peace and security of the country.""" They first obtained the surrender of Manhattan and then proceeded to visit the several colonies. They heard Mr. Nickerson's appeal, which was the only one sub- mitted to them at Plymouth, and appear to have thought his claim to a " farm of four miles square," as they call it,
31. Plym. Col. Rec. IV, 64. At the same session the Court beard a controversy be- tween the said Nickerson and the sachems, Mattaquason and Jobn Quason, about the boundaries of the land purchased by him of them and ordered a committee to be sent "to take knowlidge of the bounds of the said lands and make report therof to the Court."
35. Morton, New England's Memorial (Davis' Ed. ) 310.
67
SETTLEMENT OF MONOMOIT.
to be unreasonable." Not decming him wholly at fault, however, they consented to move the Colony Court in his behalf, if he would abide by its action, as a result of which his fine was remitted, and the following order was passed :
"Wheras William Niearson hath illegally purchased a certaine tract of land att Mannamoiett of the natives, and hath noe visible estate to satisfy the breach of order, yett hath lately submitted him selfe unto the clemency of the Court, this Court sees good to alow him, the said William Nicarson, one hundred acrees of that land att or neare his house, to bee layed out according to the best descretion of Barnard Lumber, Marshall Nash and Josepth Howes; and the rest of the said land att Mannamoiett this Court graunts unto Mr. Thomas Hinckley, Mr. John Freeman, Mr. William Sarjeant, Mr. Anthony Thacher, Nathaniel Bacon, Edmond Hawes, Thomas Howes Senir, Thomas Falland Senir, Leiftenant Josepth Rogers, to them and theire heires for ever by equal proportions to bee aloted to them, pro- vided the said William Nicarson have an equall proportion of the meddow lands there with them: and these lands to bee proportioned between the said Mr. Hinckley, Mr. Freeman and the rest above named, and the said William Nicarson's portion of land to bee layed out to him before the first day of December next ; and the Court orders that the said Mr. Hinckley, Mr. Freeman and the rest above named, alow in marchantable countrey pay theire equall proportions unto him, the said William Nicarson, of that pay as hee shall make apeer upon just account that hee payed for the purchase of the said lands? and this Court
36. "The colony of New Plymouth did submit to have appeals made to the Commis- stoners, who here had but one plaint to them, which was, that the governer would not let a man enjoy a farm of four miles square, which he had bought of an Indian, the complaint (?) soone submitted to the Governor, when he understood the unreasonable- ness by it." Commissioners' Report, Hutchinson Papers (Prince Soc. Ett.) 11, 144. For proof that Mr. NIckerson is here referred to. see Plym. Col. Rec. IV, 101.
37. This provision conclusively shows that the Court saw no unfairness or injustice In the bargain made by Mr. Nickerson with the Indians. It was not trying to protect ig. norant savages from any unjust bargain, but was trying to prevent Mr. Nickerson from
68
HISTORY OF CHATHAM.
orders and impowers the said Barnard Lambert, Marshall Nash and JJosepth Howes, in the name of the Court to put Mr. Hinckley, Mr. Freeman, Mr. Sarjeant and the rest, into full possession of the said lands att Mannamoiett; and the Court doth graunt libertie unto Mr. Hinckley, Mr. Freeman and the rest, to purchase the tract of land att Mannamoiett adjacent as are not purchased, and equally to proportion them amongst themselves, soe that it exceed not above one hundred acrees apeece ; and this Court ordereth that none of them shall sell or allianate his parte or propor- tion of his lands ther unto any person or persons what- soever, but with the consent and approbation of his associates or of the Court."58
This final action of the Court was a bitter dis- appointment to Mr. Nickerson. Throughout this con- troversy, he must have stoutly claimed that, having made the bargain in good faith in ignorance of the law, he should in justice have the full benefit of it. The Colonial authori- ties on the other hand, felt that the majesty of the law should be vindicated. For this some of them had getting the full benefit of his trade and thereby escaping punishment. They required him to let in outsiders, whom it selected, as partners in his enterprise and they were to repay him a proportionate part of the purchase money pald by bim. It was quite natural for him to have strenuously resisted. Ile wished to make his own selection of partners. The statement (Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic, 498) that the Colonial authorities acted from jealous regard of the Indian rights, is, therefore, not upheld by the facts. Their jealous regard was for the rights of the "purchasers or old comers."
38. Plym. Col. Rec. IV, 87, 96 and 101.
It may not be clear to some readers why the representatives of the "purchasers or old comers," Governor Bradford, Thomas Prince, Edward Bangs and the others to whom the Cape "reserve" was assigned in 1652, did not proceed directly against Mr. Nickerson on account of his purchase. That they were interested parties nowhere appears in any part of the controversy, except in a single clause ( Plym. Col. Rec. IV. 59), where the purebase of Mr. Nickerson Is stated to be to their prejudice. The answer to this, probably, is that Mr. Nickerson at hrst nelther settled on the land nor could he produce any deed. Ils clabus rested only on a verbal agreement. Under such cir- enmstances, the "purchasers or old comers" might have had difficulty in showing any damage to themselves. They, of course, could not bring an action of trespass. The procedure adopted was, doubtless, thought to be at the time more effectual than any other. It is probable that the "purchasers or old comers" eventually obtained com- pensation in some form for the lands from the colony, although nothing appears of record to show It. Gov. Thomas Prince succeeded Gov. Bradford, and as head of the "purchasers," doubtless looked out for his own and their interest. 1 belleve them to have been the instigators of the proceedings against Nickerson.
69
SETTLEMENT OF MONOMOIT.
personal, as well as public, reasons. Not appreciating this attitude of the Colony, Mr. Nickerson looked upon the proceeding as a colossal piece of injustice, as it certainly was from his standpoint. The trouble rankled in his breast. He conceived that Mr. Thomas Hinckley of Barnstable, later Governor and then one of the most in- fluential citizens of the Cape, had willfully used his influence as Assistant against him. Indignant at the allowance of a paltry one hundred aeres for himself and children, (which would give them only ten acres apiece), and smarting under a sense of his injuries, he could not refrain from committing his opinions to writing. In a letter to Barnstable and in another to the Plymouth Court, he accused Mr. Hinckley of denying him justice while acting as a member of the Court and of being "in combination with them that had a hand in royett and route," [disorder and violence], but not long after he discovered his mistake and wrote an ample apology to Mr. Hinckley.3 / The Court, however, not con- tent with this, thought it necessary to impose a fine upon him." He, also, wrote a letter, dated April 2, 1666, to Col. Richard Nicolls, the Royal Commissioner," then Governor of New York Colony, stating his grievances and bitterly complaining of the conduet of the Plymouth author- ities. A copy of this letter was soon brought to the atten- tion of the Court, whereupon he and his three sons-in-law, Robert Eldred, Nathaniel Covell and Tristram Hedges, who had some part in sending the letter, were summoned to Plymouth. 42 While this case was pending, the authorities received another letter written by him to Col. Nicolls, dated Feb. 23, 1666-7, in which he continued his attacks upon
39. Plym Col. Rec. IV, 134.
40. Plym Col. Rec. IV, 140. Part of the fine was remitted on his acknowledging his mistake In Court.
41. Col. Nicolls held his appointment as Royal Commissioner for life. The term of the other connulssioners had expired. Documents, N. Y. Colonial llistory, 111, 61,
42. Plym, Col. Rec. IV, 134, 155.
70
HISTORY OF CHATHAM.
them, and thereupon it was decided to bind over the aceused to answer for both writings. " Matters looked seri- ous for them, but Col. Nicolls interfered in their behalf and the Court, not caring to offend this representative of the Crown, contented itself with imposing a moderate fine.#
Meanwhile the order of June, 1665, granting to Mr. Hinckley and others all except 100 acres of the Nickerson purchase, remained in full force. By virtue of it these grantees obtained a title which the Court was bound to protect, while Mr. Nickerson had no title whatever except to the 100 acres granted to him. In fact, he had not even secured the Indian title. He had differed with the Indians as to the amount of land he ought to have and they had refused to give him any deed acceptable to him. It is stated in the Court records that during all this controversy he "was never able to produce any deed or legall evidence of any such purchase, although hee hath bine severall times urged therunto in open Court." " All that bath appeered," says the record, "is that there hath bine divers goods given by the said Nicarson and reconed by the Indians by way of bargaine for some land, but never agreed how much or upon what tearmes, Nicarson boldly affeirming and the Indians as peremtorily deneying and soe it remaines. "$5 Accordingly the Court, in July, 1667, ordered, inasmuch as there had been so much trouble about these lands, "that from henceforth the Indians be required not to make any further bargaine or contract with the said Nicarson about the said lands except in the hearing or presence of such as the Court shall appoint for such an end. "#
Feeling their rights secure, Mr. Hinckley and his asso- ciates appear to have been in no haste to enjoy the benefits
43. Plym. Col. Rec. IV, 157.
44. Plym. Col. Rec. IV, 168.
45. Plym. Col. Rec. IV, 162.
46. Plym. Col. Rec. IV, 163.
71
SETTLEMENT OF MONOMOIT.
of their grant. We find that, in October, 1666, they obtained a judgment for ten shillings against Robert Eldred, Nathaniel Covell and Tristram Hedges for unjust possession and improvement of the lands at Monomoit, " but aside from this suit, the records do not show any effort on their part to assert their title or to disturb the settlers. They made no settlement and no sales to intending settlers. After a time, the interest of Mr. Hinckley was purchased by Major Josiah Winslow of Duxbury, but no other transfers of ownership occurred. For seven years (from 1665 to 1672) the situation remained unchanged. During this time Mr. Nickerson appears to have continued his efforts to seenre a deed from the Indians, but without success. Finally, in March, 1672, he sued the sachem Mattaquason to recover damages for withholding the deed and was again unsuc- cessful. 48
This result might well have shown him how im- possible it was to obtain protection from the Court. It would seem, at least, to have convinced him that, if he was ever to secure title to his purchase, he must make terms with Mr. Winslow and his associates and purchase their rights under sanction of the Court. But whether this be the explanation or not, we find that, within a few months after the termination of the abovementioned suit, he had reached an agreement with them and, by payment of ninety pounds "in current New England pay," had secured not only a deed from them, but also his long coveted deed from the Indians. The latter deed is dated June 19, 1672, and is signed by Mattaquason and John Quason, his son, the sachems of Monomoit. The lands, for which he had originally bargained and which he had striven so long to secure, are therein described as follows : "All that traet of lands, both uplands and Meddows, lying and being att
47. Plym. Col. Rec. VII, 132.
48. Plym. Col. Rec. VII, 171.
72
HISTORY OF CHATHAM.
Mannamoiett aforsaid, beginning att the west syde of the head of a Cove, commonly knowne by the name of Muddy Cove, and stretching over Southerly to a pond called Mash- poxett, and thence by a creek to the Sea, and extending easterly to the oyster pond and thence by a little Swamp ranging through a valley Northerly to a Cove of Marsh knowne by the name of Pimpnuett, running through the said Marsh to the River called Quassaqueesett, bounded Northerly by the River which runs up to the said Muddy Cove and Sontherly to the Sea."#
This description will be found to apply to the tract bounded west by a line from Muddy Cove through Taylor's pond to the sea, south by the sea and Oyster Pond river, east by a line from near the head of the Oyster Pond through Stepstone meadow (Pimpnuet ) and Frosttish Creek (Quassaqueesett river) to Pleasant Bay, and north by Pleasant Bay and Muddy Cove river. It is shown on the accompanying map as the first Nickerson purchase." As incidental to his ownership, the sachems granted him the right to pasture cattle on their lands lying east and west of the aforesaid tract so long as such lands should lie in common and unfenced, at such times "as the said Sachems or theire assigns have not corne growing on
49. Plym Col. Deeds 111, 251.
50. Mr. James Freeman in his "Description of Chatham" (1 Mass. Hist. Coll. Vol. 8) says: "April 10, 1665, William Nickerson bought of John Quason allas Towso- wet, sachem of Monamoy, a tract of land near Potanumaquut bounded east by the Great Harbour, south by a line which extends west by south into the woods, from Wequaset to a pine tree marked on four sales and north by a fine extending to the farther head of a pond, to a place called Porcheommock." This statement also appears In Rev. Frederick Freeman's History of Cape Cod. It is doubtless correct, but, contrary to the supposition of both writers, It has nothing to do with Chatham. The tract described lles on the west side of Pleasant bay worth of Muddy Cove The locality appears to have been called Monomolt in very early times, but it was not a part of the later town of Chatham nor Indeed, of the constablewick or village of Monomolt (see Chap. VI). it is doubtless the same land desertbed by WHHam Nickerson, the second of that name, in a deed to hits four sons, dated Feb. 23, 1709-10, as follows: "that my parcel of land lying to the northward of ye woody (?) [mudy, muddy] cove and so up to Setucket ponds which my father bought of old John Quason." (Files Superior Court of Judicature No. 7723.)
LANDS OF THE "PURCHASERS" OR "OLD COMERS" [LATERHARWICH ]
TRASH PATUXET, OR RED RIVER
3 KINGS ROAD
THE SOUTH SEA
NICKERSON'S
THIRD
NO PURCHASE
OYSTER POND POXE
AAUDDY COVE
₹
PURCHASE
FIRSTO
WILLING NICKERSON, a
LEN.
MONOMOYICK BAY [row Pleasant Bay]
L.SAO
ICKERSONS
mm
GREAT
SSAQUESSUT
RIVER
NECKGY OFTE
OYSTER PONTE
- LANDS RETAINED
BY THE INDIANS
ON WHICH SOME OF
THE TRIBE CONTINUED TO
NECX
FOU
'S NECK
PURCHASE.
DID NOT DashausET
[1682]
So .
COTSHPINICU
MONOMOIT
ISLANDE
GREAT
BEACH
ATLANTIC OCEAN
PURCHASED BY WILLIAM NICKERSON, SEN.
SHOWING THE LANDS AT MONOMOU A ROUGH SKETCH
ERES O
MOUSEDAR
N N'30
GREA
OF 1672] AT HILLS
ONOMEGET NECK
SECOND DOR PURCHASEEm
AREUANSET.
ONVISI
QUI
NICKERSONS
DWELL.VENICKERSON
HAD AUTHORITY TO
COTCHPINICUT
PURE
-£
[SEE DEET
[DE ED OF 1679]
DOVE
73
SETTLEMENT OF MONOMOIT.
theire lands to be predjndiced therin." For this land and these rights, the Indians received a shallop, ten coats of trucking cloth, six kettles, twelve axes, twelve hoes, twelve knives, forty shillings in wampum, a hat and twelve shil- lings in money. This was the consideration which Mr. Nickerson had paid as early as 1656.
The same deed contains, also, a description of the neck of land called by the Indians Saquanset and later known as the Great Neck, being all the land between the Oyster pond, Stage Harbor and Mill pond. This tract he purchased of the sachems just before the date of the deed by the aid of Mr. Hinckley, Mr. Freeman and Mr. Bacon, a committee appointed by the Court for that purpose. In payment therefor he delivered to the Indians two four-year-old steers, one cow and calf and two bushels of Indian corn.51 It is shown on the map as the second Nickerson purchase.
The deed which he received from the grantees of the Court, is dated July 3, 1672, and is executed by Major Josiah Winslow, Mr. John Freeman and Mr. Nathaniel Bacon, these three acting for their partners as well as for themselves. They conveyed to him "all that tract or tracts of lands, both uplands and meadows, graunted by the Court of New Plymouth to the abovenamed Thomas Hinckley, John Freeman, Nathaniel Bacon and the parteners aforsaid as by Court Record bearing date JJune, one thousand six hundred and sixty-five, more att Large appeareth Lying and being att Mannamoiett aforsaid or places adjacent before then purchased by the said William Nicarson of the
51. The description of this neck In the deed Is as follows: "All that our neck of land called Saquanset, beginning att a Rock lying att the head of the abovemensioned oyster pond, ranging easterly by the syde of the Marsh to the line which runs Crosse the sald Marsh and Swamp to a marked pine tree and thence Crosse the upland to a green oak tree by the syde of a cove or River called Naxtonweest att the end of a little valley that leads to the said River and thence to the Sea, containing all the lands both uplands and meddow In the said Neck bounded easterly by the said River and westerly by the River or water that runs from the said Oyster pond to the Sea and Northerly by the upland on the syde of the aforsaid marsh." The Sachems also granted a right of way from this neck to the other lands of sald Nickerson. Plym. Col, Deeds III, 251.
74
HISTORY OF CHATHAM.
Indians and alsoe all theire Right and title in such lands as they had libertie to purchase of the Indians att the said Mannamoiett not then purchased, According to the true Intent and meaning of the Court's graunt aforsaid. * * The said tract of land then purchased by the said William Nicarson of the Indians is bounded as by deed given by Mattaquason and John Quason, Sachems of Mannamoiett * * * bearing date the 19th of June, 1672, Reference thereunto being had may and doth att large appear, Together with a certaine Neck of land therin mensioned which was since purchased according to the aforsaid libertie granted by the Court." 52
By these two deeds Mr. Nickerson obtained title to the tract of land embraced in his original purchase and to the neck called Saquanset, at the same time acquiring the right to buy from the Indians other lands adjacent, not exceeding 1,000 acres in all. His title was apparently complete, but his troubles were not yet over. Of the ninety pounds pur- chase money, a part had been contributed by his sons and sons-in-law and the property was subject to equities in their favor. It was, doubtless, for the purpose of satisfying their claims that carly in 1674 he conveyed to certain of his children portions of the tract. His sons, Samuel, John, Joseph and Robert, and his daughters, Ann Hedges and Sarah Covell, each received forty acres of upland and ten aeres of meadow. 53 His daughter, Elizabeth Eldred,
52. Plym. Col. Deeds III, 252.
53. The deeds, from which the above facts are gleaned, are the following :
(1) Deed to Samuel Nickerson, dated Feb. 12, 1673-4, recorded Book 2. fol. 228, of former records of Barnstable Registry. (Certified copy in M. L. Lnce papers. )
(2) Deed to Joseph Nickerson, dated Feb. 10, 1673 4. recorded In Barnstable Registry Mch. 6, 1687-8. (Certified copy in Osborn Nickerson papers. )
(3) Deed to John Nickerson, dated Feb. 11, 1673-4, recorded Book 5, fol. 328, Plym . Col. Deeds.
(4) Deed to Sarah Covell, dated Feb. 11, 1673-4, recorded Book 4, fol. 264, Plym. Col. Deeds.
(5) Deed to Tristram and Ann Hedges, dated Feb. 10, 1673-4, partial copy on cover of Quason Proprietors book In Harwich Town ( lerk's office. This may not have been the copy of a deed actually delivered, but it probably was. It is dated about the date of the others and the judgment of the court later mentioned (page 75) shows that some deed was given by Willlam Nickerson to Hedges before 1677.
(6) See deed to Tristram ledges, dated Feb. 24, 1673-4, as indicating that Robert Nickerson received his share. (Copy in M. L. Luce papers. )
75
SETTLEMENT OF MONOMOIT.
had already obtained her share in 1662, as we have seen. With this allowance of fifty acres to cach child interested, all parties seem to have been satis- fied, except Tristram Hedges and his wife, Ann, who claimed an interest in all the land embraced in the purchase. Trouble began in 1677, when Hedges undertook to warn from their habitations JJohn Downing, John Savage, and Edward Cottle, three purchasers from William Nicker- son, "telling them it was his and the rest of his brethren's land and that the said William Nicarson hath nothing to do to sell theire lands and advised them not to pay the said Nicarson for they should not enjoy it." 5 Not long after this episode Hedges began a suit against his father-in-law, claiming damages because the latter had sold land at Mono- moit in which the plaintiff had an interest and had refused and neglected to make division thereof. He claimed to have paid ten pounds of the ninety pounds purchase money and alleged that William Nickerson held title, although in his own name, vet also as agent or trustee for his children. At the trial in October, 1677, the jury found that the plaintiff and his wife were joint partners in the land with William Nickerson and the rest of his children, but upon a re-hearing in the following March the former verdict was modified, the jury finding that Hedges "had right to lands att Mannamoiett and that hee hath had land there and doe not find hee hath proved right to more than what he hath had." 55 This verdiet was allowed to stand and William Nickerson's title to that part of his purchase which he had not conveyed to his children became at last unassail- able.
Before this time the Court at Plymouth, recognizing the validity of his title under the deed from Mr. Winslow and his partners, had specially authorized him, according to the
54. Plym. Col. Rec. VII, 207.
55. Plym. Col. Rec. VII, 205, 209.
76
HISTORY OF CHATHAM.
terms of that deed, to buy of the Indians the tract of 1000 acres adjacent to his first purchase " and had appointed Mr. John Freeman and Mr. Jonathan Sparrow, both of East- ham, to lay out and settle the bounds of the tract which he might acquire under this authority.57 These appointees, as we shall see, did not perform their duties till many years after, but he was not thereby prevented from exercising his rights of purchase. Not long after his title had been estab- lished in the suit brought by Hedges, he proceeded to buy of the sachem, John Quason, a tract adjoining his original purchase on the west, paying therefor twenty pounds "in current English goods." The deed which he received is dated March 29, 1678-9. Under it he acquired all the land lying between his original purchase and the present boundary between Harwich and Chatham.5% It is shown on the foregoing map as the third Nickerson purchase.
Four years later he enlarged his territory by purchasing all the meadow at a place called Pamuet, near his former bounds, and all the meadow on the east and west sides of Tom's Neck, paying therefor "twelve pounds and eleven shillings in current English goods." The deed of this tract is dated August 16, 1682, and is signed by John Quason.59
56. Plym. Col. Rec. V, 147.
57. Plym. Col. Rec. V, 154.
58. The description in the deed is as follows: "All our Neck of Land called Mash- pokset that lyeth westward of ye former lands purchased to a Creeke called by ye Indlans Maspatuxet, by ye English ye Creek is called the Reed River and where there is a pine knott Drove Into ye Marsh on ye Easter side of ye Creek and from that point of Marsh where ye pine knot Is Driven down It is to range Sontherly to ye Sea & Northerly from ye head of ye Swamp where ye Reed River or Creek Issues ont straight in a Valley where there is trees marked to a pond & over ye end of ye pond there are trees marked to ye highway and then it ranges easterly as ye highway ranges to a tree where Indlan popa- mosset cowet's Bounds is & so to ye Muddey Cove & so it Is Joyned to my former Bounds that Willlam Nickerson first purchased of Mattaquason & John Quason, sachems of Monamoy." Plym. Col. Deeds V, 463.
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.