USA > Maine > Lincoln County > Bremen > A history of the towns of Bristol and Bremen in the state of Maine : including the Pemaquid Settlement > Part 46
USA > Maine > Lincoln County > Bristol > A history of the towns of Bristol and Bremen in the state of Maine : including the Pemaquid Settlement > Part 46
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
The Indian deed to Brown, though dated in 1625, was not put on record until Dec. 26th, 1720, when it was entered in a "Book of Records of Eastern Claims of Lands" in Charlestown, at the instance of James Stilson and his sister, Mrs. Margaret Hilton, great grand children of Brown. This "book of records," it is believed, was destroyed in the fire which consumed the Court House in Boston in 1747; but fortunately an attested copy of Brown's deed had previously been obtained, probably by some one for the heirs of Brown. 1
That John Brown attached little importance to this purchase (so called) of the Indians, is plainly indicated by the circum- stances already related, and also by the fact that in 1641 (Jan. 9th), he witnessed another deed given by some Indians to his son-in-law, Richard Peirce, of a portion of the same land con- vered to himself by his Indian deed of 1625. If deeds pretend- ing to convey portions of the soil from one to another, were of no consequence, it was mere children's play to give them, and they might be multiplied at pleasure. And many of the heirs of Brown, in subsequent years appeared to act on this principle. They supposed themselves to have some " color of right" to portions of territory ; and if men were found ready to purchase such questionable titles, why should not the holders dispose of them for a consideration ? And if the very foundation of the supposed titles was questionable, why should the parties be particular as to metes and bounds, or to any questions in regard to the right of others to the territory supposed to be conveyed ? Besides this, the parties were far away from the territory in question, very many of the papers and records pertaining to previous transactions had been irrecoverably lost in the wars;
1 Lin. Rep., 1811, pp. 106, 108.
-
471
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
and accurate information very difficult, if not impossible to be obtained. Both parties to these sales therefore considered the transactions much in the nature of a lottery business, in which each acted on his own responsibility, and each took his own risk.
It is proper that we should keep these considerations in mind, as we proceed to detail some of the transactions of the heirs of Brown, and others claiming under them.
It is not easy now to determine the boundaries of the tract intended to be conveyed by the Indian deed to Peirce, of Jan. 6th, 1641, just alluded to, so imperfectly is it described, but, probably it was a tract lying immediately south of the 8 miles square tract next to be described, and of course having the noted pine tree in its northern boundary, though this is not mentioned in the deed. In fact, except at the north, it corres- ponded very nearly with the territory of the present town of Bremen.
In 1660, Aug. 8th, Brown conveyed by deed of gift to his son-in-law, Alexander Gould and wife, the " 8 mile square tract," which became celebrated in later times. It is described as "a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Broad Bay, be- ginning at a pine tree marked in the westernmost branch of the bay; from thence north north east by Muscongus river eight miles ; from thence eight miles north west and by west, from thence south, south west eight miles, from thence south, east and by east eight miles to the tree where it first began."
This deed, if good, of course conveyed all right to this part of Brown's original purchase to Gould and wife and their heirs to the exclusion of his other children and their heirs.
Gould and wife (as we have seen), had three daughters, Mar- garet, Mary and Elizabeth, the first of whom married 1st, James Stilson, and 2d, Thomas Pitman. .
Next, Mes. Pitman2 and husband (Dec. 20th, 1720), conveyed this tract, including also Muscongus island, to her children, James Stilson jr., and his sister, Mrs. Wm. Hilton ; no mention being made of any other heirs of Sander and Margaret Gould.
1 Some copies read north, north west by west. The reader will get a good idea of this tract by thinking of it as a square lot, S miles on each side, and having its southeastern corner at a pine tree on the shore at Broad Core, a little distance north of the present creek bridge, and having the Waldoboro bay and river for its eastern boundary.
2 Files Maine Historical Society.
472
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
The month following, Jan. 5th, 1727, said brother and sister jointly sold to Thomas Amory of Boston, 1,000 acres of the tract, to be taken " adjoining to and on the north east side of land of Capt. Jonathan Pitman." Amory afterwards sold the . same tract to Job Lewis, also of Boston, who in 1750, visited the place, and claimed that the lot of 1,000 acres was situated on the west side of the Medomac (Waldoboro) Falls, and so up the river on the same side. The next year, he caused a house to be built on the lot, but never occupied it.1 What afterwards became of the claim is not known.
March 27th, 1733. the said James Stilson, sold to Samuel Waldo, for 200, one undivided half of this 8 mile square tract, making no reservation as to the 1,000 acres previously sold to Amory ; and also 700 acres on Broad Bay adjoining the first tract; but what title he had to the latter, does not appear.
Waldo was then chief owner of the Lincoln or Muscongus Patent for a tract 10 leagues square lying between the Penob- scot and Muscongus rivers; but he was willing, if possible, to stretch his claim a little further westward, and there- fore made this purchase of Stilson. He was thus prepared, if his title under the old charter should fail, to fall back upon the deed of Stilson. When, subsequently, he introduced his Ger- man colony here, he did not hesitate to locate them on the west as well as on the east side.
He insisted that the lands at Muscongus Harbor and Round Pond, came within his claim, and actually sold a lot at the former place to Wm. Burns, and another at the latter place to James Yeates.
Mary Gould, daughter of Alexander and Margaret (Brown) Gould, married John Coats, and had by him an only child, Prinsent Coats; and the latter sold his interest in the Brown claim, whatever it might be, to Wm. Noble, mentioning par- ticularly the "8 mile square tract " of which he claimed one- third rightfully, as it would seem.2 Noble left this by will to some of his relations, whose representatives were particularly active in bringing on the crisis that resulted in the settlement of the whole matter, as will hereafter be stated in detail.
Let us now attend to the doings of other heirs of John Brown, 1st.
2 Files, Secretary's office, Boston.
" Our authority for these statements are not quite clear, and it is possible all the points may not be exactly as stated.
473
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
John Brown, 2d, left only a single heir, John Brown, 3d, " of Saco, alias Biddeford ;" and Dec. 7th, 1720, the former conveyed to the latter all the interest and title, whatever it might be, which he had in the claim of his father (John Brown, 1st), at Pemaquid and vicinity. Then (Sept. 10th, 1734), the latter re- linquished to the heirs of Richard Peirce, all right or title which he might have in the tract purchased of the Indians, Jan. 6th, 1641; and a little more than a year later, gave a deed to Wm. Vaughan, of all the land purchased of the Indians by his grand- father, making no reservation as to the part previously conveyed to Gould and wife, or to the claims of Richard Peirce, or other heirs of John Brown sr.
The descendants of Emma (Mary) Brown, who married Nicholas Denning were of course co-heirs to the estate of John Brown, Ist, but we hear little of them except the bare mention of their names.
Mrs. Elizabeth (Brown) Peirce, as we have seen, had some child- ren, several of whom, or their descendants, in later times, made their appearance as claimants in the Brown territory at Pema- quid. Among those were Nathaniel and Mary (Peirce), Hamb- lin (the latter styling herself granddaughter of Richard Peirce, and great granddaughter of John Brown) and Wm. and Mind- well (Peiree) Huxley, and Eleazer and Sarah (Peirce) Stock- well, - the two ladies being granddaughters of said Richard Peirce, and great granddaughters of John Brown. These, late in the year 1732, by several deeds conveyed to Timothy and Joshua Boardman and others of Wethersfield, Ct., all their right, title and interest in the Brown purchase, - including also, as a matter of course, whatever interest they might have in the 8 mile square tract.
A daughter of Timothy Boardman married Alexander Fra- zier, - and from this circumstance came the Frazier claim.
A few years after this (in 1735) one of the Boardmans, prob- ably Timothy, made a visit to the place ; - and tradition among his descendants now living in Connecticut, informs us that he was not very kindly received. 1 In his return journey he called on Tutor Flint of Harvard College, Oct. 15th, who made a note of the fact in his diary.
1 It is possible that this tradition may have reference to some other one of the Boardman family, who visited the place at a late date; as one or more of them are known to have done.
60
474
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
Wm. Frazer, (so he was accustomed to spell his name) son of Alexander, near the close of the last century, undertook to re- vive the Boardman claim, and for several years proscouted the work with much zeal. A meeting of the claimants under this title was held at Canaan, at which it was determined to prosc- cute the claim jointly, and means taken to provide the necessary funds. Wm. Frazer was appointed their agent, and authorized to proceed according to his own discretion. After much con- sultation he determined to " visit the ground," as he was accus- tomed to express it, calling at Boston, and Alfred to examine the records in those places.
This journey was performed on horse-back in the summer of 1796 ; and a full account of it, carefully written after his return, is still preserved. He left " Loonenburg," a place on the Hud- son river in New York state, nearly opposite the present city of Hudson, for Masaschusetts early in June, and returned the first of August, having, as he says, quite worn out his horse. At Boston and at Alfred he made careful search of the records, as he claims, and at all places made it a point to inquire concern- ingthe titles to lands in Maine. From Damariscotta he passed directly to McGuire's tavern in Waldoboro, which was some two miles below the present village, on the west side of the bay. Having made all the inquiry he could as to the property in question, he returned as he came. The next year the visit was repeated ; but we have no circumstantial account of it. 1
After this movement of Frazier, the representatives of this brauch of the Brown or Peirce claim appear to have made little further effort to maintain it; but only a few years ago a son of Wm. Frazier, then living in Rockland Co., N. Y., intimated an intention to bring the subject again before the legislature of Maine by petition.
Two other claims to lands here require to be noticed, called the Tappan and the Vaughan claims.
First the Tappan claim. Mention has heretofore been made of Walter Phillips, who, at the beginning of the first Indian war, resided with his family at Damariscotta, on the west side near the point where the bridge is located. February 15th, 1661, he
1 A receipt from Salmon Chase of Portland for advice concerning these lands, dated July 10, 1797, shows that he was there at this date. Salmon Chase was a lawyer of Portland, and father of the late chief justice of the United States. The sum charged for advice, $15, would appear decidedly modest in these times. See also N. E. Hist. Gen. Reg., XXV, 341.
475
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
purchased of several Indian chiefs a tract of land on the west side of the river, which is thus described :
"Beginning at the lower end of the Salt Pond at Damariscotta, so tending right over Cauesisex river, due west norwest, so tending right up in the country 3 leges from the mouth of the Fresh Falls, all the up- land and marsh or marshes there belonging thereunto within the compass of 3 leges above mentioned."
Again, Jan. 19th, 1662, he purchased of some other chiefs the tract described below :
" Beginning at Pencotsgowake, the one half upwards to the lower end of the Salt Pond to the end of the land throughout to the indraft that comes out of the Salt Pond, so likewise from Pedeocgowake down to the poke (nook) below the house of the said Walter Phillips, which the natives use to carry their canoes, over to Cauesix river, so likewise on the other side of said meadoes that lies west north west from Pedcocegowake 200 poles in length norwest, all marshes fresh and salt, within the limits above mentioned."
December 28th, 1674, still another deed from certain of the Indians was given to Phillips, of 500 acres west of Damariscotta ponds, the boundaries being better defined than in the preced- ing; but it is not necessary here to repeat the language.
These deeds were supposed to convey to Phillips a large tract on the Damariscotta river and pond, extending downward into Bristol; but the limits never were (or could be) determined. . This whole tract, conveyed by these three deeds1 to Phillips,
was sold by him Nov. 10th, 1702, to Rev. Dr. Christopher Tap- pan (or Toppan) of Newbury, who, about 1720, sent down sev- eral settlers who took possession of some lots pertaining to the claim, put up some kind of houses, and made some other im- provements. The object was simply to strengthen the title by performing acts of ownership.
Those representing this claim were very active near the close of the last century, in their efforts to induce the settlers on the disputed territory to purchase of them.
The Vaughan claim originated with Wm. Vaughan, before mentioned, (p. 239). He came to the place about the same time as Dunbar, and probably, under his patronage, though it does not appear that he received any grant of land from him. He established himself at Damariscotta mills, and for a time carried
1 The originals of these deeds, with the scrawls of the Indians for signatures, are still preserved in the Secretary's Office in Boston.
" Lin. Rep., 1811, p. 145. Ante, p. 201.
476
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
on a large lumber business. It is believed, he first erected mills there.
Vaughan died in 1755, leaving all his possessions by will to several brothers and sisters, who, when the time of final settle- ment came, were represented by Eliot G. Vaughan, a nephew (it is believed) of William. Ile was very active in behalf of the claim, and gained for himself not a little notoriety among the people of the place.
This claim, as finally presented, included substantially all the territory of the present towns of Bristol, Bremen, Damariscotta, and Nobleboro, most of Newcastle, and parts of Jefferson and Waldoboro. In support of it about a dozen different deeds were brought forward, all of them in the name of Wm. Vaughan, and obtained by him in the years 1732-1740. The details in regard to these cannot be given here, but a few facts will be cf interest.
It will be recollected that at the time of the first Indian war there lived on the Damariscotta four families, those of Walter Phillips and John Taylor on the west side, near the present bridge, and John Brown, and Robert Scott on the east side. Phillips, as we have seen, had acquired such a title to a large and indefinite tract, including the lot he lived upon, as several Indian chiefs could give; but the others were only squatters (as they would now be called), having no title to the lands occupied by them but such as possession would give. Phillips, had already conveyed to Tappan all his title to lands in the region; but Vaughan sought out the other three set- tlers here, or rather some of their heirs, and obtained from them such titles as they could give to the lands formerly occu- pied by the several families, care being taken in each case to include in the deed a generous allowance of territory. John Brown, 3d, for instance, ventured to include in his deed to Vaughan, a lot 13 miles wide and 2 miles long, extending downward on the east side from " near the head of the falls" (the place of the present bridge). This deed of Brown is dated Oct. 30th, 1734; but the next year, Dec. 8th, he made a further venture, and sold to Vaughan the whole John Brown tract, without qualification or limitation, as regards the tract just mentioned, or the "eight mile square tract," or the rights of any other heirs of his grandfather, John Brown, Ist .!
1 Files Maine Historical Society.
4.77
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
Perhaps it was only the proportional part that might be found to belong to him, as an heir of his grandfather; that he intended to convey, the same in fact as conveyed to him by his father, John Brown, 2d, by his deed, Dec. 7th, 1720, previously mentioned, (p. 457).
The other deeds do not require further mention.
As to this Vaughan claim, it is proper here to say, that seve- ral years after Vaughan had established himself here, and had made considerable improvements, especially at the "fresh water falls" (Dam. Mills), Tappan brought against him, and those acting under him, an action of ejectment; but judgment was given in favor of the defendant. This was in 1741. The case was carried by appeal the next year to the Superior Court of York Co., when the previous decision was confirmed. This action had reference only to 50 acres of land at the falls, where Vaughan had made his chief improvements in the erection of mills and other buildings.1
CHAPTER XXXVI.
LAND TITLES IN BRISTOL AND BREMEN, CONTINUED. SETTLEMENT OF THE CONTROVERSY.
Prosperity of this part of the country at the beginning of the century - Heirs of John Brown - The time at hand for the settlement of claims to land here - Ac- tion begun against John Hall -- A supposed proprietor by the name of North, visits Pemaquid -- Law of March 6th, 1810-Noble vs. Hall - A survey of the Brown claim to be made - Vaughan rs. Thompson - James Malcomb's return as Surveyor - Law passed for calling out the militia - Petitions from the people - Board of Commissioners appointed - Meeting of Committee at Myrick's - At Pemaquid - E. W. Ripley appointed Secretary of the Commissioners -The Commissioners received very kindly by the people, and make a favorable re- port - A second Board of Commissioners appointed, and settlement effected - Basis of the derision.
At the beginning of the present century, the country at large had very considerably recovered from the disastrous effects of the revolutionary and other previous Indian wars; and this part of the country especially enjoyed a degree of prosperity 1 Lin. Rep., 1811, p. 105.
478
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
before unknown. The lumber business, in particular, was very active, as the region had not then been entirely despoiled of its immense forests ; there was much ship building carried on at various points on the coast, and many vessels employed in transporting lumber to domestic and foreign ports, bringing back in return West India goods, for which there was a great demand, and manufactured articles mostly from Europe.
. This, of course, occasioned considerable immigration to this region, and a rapid increase of population, and a corresponding increase in the value of land ; a circumstance naturally exciting the attention of the proprietors of the soil, whether resident or nonresident. More than this, and especially important, the time was fast approaching when many of the earliest settlers, if left undisturbed, would hold the places they occupied by right of possession, the period then required for this purpose in Massachusetts, being 60 years.
The " proprietors," as all the nonresident claimants to own- ership of the soil were called, had become a numerous body, mostly living in Massachusetts, but some of them residents in other states. Occasionally, one or more would visit the place, in order to assert his right, or to convince the settlers of the justness of his (the proprietor's) title, and the necessity they were under to purchase of him. There being two or three claimants to almost every portion of the territory, the efforts of the agent for one claim often very effectually neutralized those of another ; so that little progress was made by any. A very few of the settlers were occasionally persuaded to pay a trifling consideration for a title under some one claim, but too often to make such a purchase by any one, served only as a signal for the agents of other claimants also to fall upon him.
Occasionally, at an early period, suits were brought against some of the old settlers, but the object of the claimant bringing the suit generally was not to determine the validity of his title, and therefore his right to sell, but to compel the settlers to buy of him, rather than any others of the so called proprietors. Thus James Yeates was sued about 1762 by one Henshaw for his farm at Round Pond, though he (Yeates) had previously procured a deed from Waldo. Yeates finally recovered in the action, though in order to do so he was obliged to purchase the same farm of Drowne1 Burns, father of Deacou Wm. Burns, purchased his
1 Lin. Rep., 1811, p. 163.
1
479
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
farm at Muscongus of Waldo, and afterwards felt compelled to repurchase of Drowne, though there were several other " propri- etors" who claimed to own the same land, and still threatened him with lawsuits.
Other cases of the same character will be found recorded in the important report, just referred to at the bottom of the page.
The facts already given show very conclusively the uncer- tainty of all land titles at this time in all this region ; and if a settler was ever so desirous to pay the full value of the farm he lived on, it was impossible to determine who, among the many claimants (if any), could give him a legal title. Even if he could satisfy himself as to the comparative validity of the original claims, -- as the Brown, the Drowne, or the Vaughan claim, - still this was not sufficient. There were often other claims that did not come really and fully under any one of these heads. Some of the heirs of the original claimants at an early period, sold their undefined title and right, whatever that might be, to a particular claim, their proportional part or parts, supposing the claim valid, depending of course upon the number of heirs, and also the relation they might hold to the person from whom they inherited ; but who, after the lapse of three-fourths of a century would undertake legally to determine the question what pro- portional part the said grantor may have been entitled to !
This will be best illustrated by referring to a single case. Oct. 13th, 1732, Eleazer Stockwell and Sarah (Pearse) Stock- well, the latter claiming to be a granddaughter of Richard Pearse, formerly of Muscongus, and great grand-daughter of John Brown of Pemaquid, sold to Timothy and Joshua Board- man, of Wethersfield, Ct., all the right, title and interest which she was of right entitled to in the Brown purchase of 1625 ;- consideration £400. But who could tell at the beginning of the present century, what proportional part of the Brown tract Mrs. Sarah (Pearse) Stockwell might rightfully have claimed in 1732. Mrs. Stockwell and several other grandchildren of Richard Pearse, then lived on the Housatonic river, somewhere in the western part of Connecticut or Massachusetts; and the trouble and expense to a person in Maine, who at the beginning of this century should have attempted to settle such a question, would not have been small. 1
1 Hinman's First Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, 2:1. Original Deeds and Letters in the possession of the writer.
480
HISTORY OF BRISTOL AND BREMEN.
Some of the supposed heirs, in giving deeds, mentioned the proportional part to which they supposed themselves entitled, but considered their share much larger than that really falling to them, thus increasing the confusion. As early as 1754, com- plaint was made of this by some of the supposed heirs; thus Isaac Little, Nov. 4th, of the year mentioned, writing from Pembroke to Hon. Mr. Wells of Hartford, says that "some of the heirs, of old Richard have sold three times as much as their parts." 1
These details may seem tedious; but unless they are brought somewhat prominently before us the unfortunate condition of the people residing here at the beginning of this century, as to their titles to the lands they occupied, can hardly be appreciated. A very few families had been here about three-fourths of a con- tury, and could legally hold their farms by possession, as it is termed, some had been put in possession (or their fathers) by Dunbar, and others -constituting much the larger number - had purchased in good faith from former occupants; little be- ing thought of these old claims which had lain dormant so long as in the popular estimation to have become obsolete. There then were so many claimants to the same land it was plain that some of the titles, if not all, must lack of the essential quality, legality.
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.