History of Suffolk county, New York, 1683, Part 55

Author: W.W. Munsell & Co., pub; Bayles, Richard M. (Richard Mather); Cooper, James B. (James Brown), 1825-; Pelletreau, William S. (William Smith), 1840-1918; Street, Charles R. (Charles Rufus), 1825-1894; Smith, John Lawrence, 1816-1889
Publication date: 1882
Publisher: New York : W.W. Munsell & co.
Number of Pages: 677

USA > New York > Suffolk County > History of Suffolk county, New York, 1683 > Part 55

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).

Richbill was immediately put in possession, and no further effort was ever made by Huntington to regain Horse ( Lloyd's ) Neck. In a few years Richbill's own- ership passed to James Lloyd of Boston, and Governor Dongan granted to him a patent, constituting the neck a manor or separate local government, called Queens Village, but generally known as Lloyd's manor. This con- tinued until the close of the Revolution, when manorial governments, being incompatible with republican insti- tutions, ceased to exist. By an act of the colonial Legis- lature passed October Ist 1691 Horse Neck was declar- ed to be a part of Queens county, and when the manor ceased to exist it became a part of the town of Oyster Bay, where it has remained ever since.

The separation of Lloyd's Neck from Huntington was a great mistake; geographically, politically, socially and

financially its interests were identical with Hunting- ton's. How much this result was due to craft and cupidity it is difficult at this distant day to determine.

EDUCATIONAL BEGINNINGS.

In view of the general intelligence and enterprise of the people it is probable that more or less was done from the beginning to educate the children in the infant set- tlement, but the first mention we find of schools is at a town meeting in 1657, four years after the first arrival here, when the town made an agreement for the educa- tion of children, with Jonas Holdsworth, an educated Englishman, who as we have seen left England in 1635, aged 20 years, so that he was about 42 years old when this agreement was made. This contract is well written as to form, and its penmanship, though antiquated, is of a superior order. As it is a very quaint paper, develop- ing peculiar customs, it is here given entire:

"A covenant and agreement made the eleventh day of February 1657 at a Corte or Town meeting, betwixt the Inhabitants of ye Towne of Hunttington, of the one partie, And Jonas Houldsworth, of the other partie, whereby the said Jonas Houldsworth doth engage him- self to the saide Inhabitants during ye terme of foure years, to be expired from the 13 day of April next en- sueing the day of the date hereof, For to schoole such persons or children as shall be put to him for that end by ye said Inhabitants. And likewise the said Inhabit- ants doth alsoe engage themselves to the said Jonas Houldsworth for to build him a sufficient house, and to give him with ye said house a percell of grounde ad- joining to it for accomodation thereunto. And further- more the said inhabitants doth likewise engage them- selves to pay unto ye said Jonas Houldsworth, and in consideration ot his said schooling, twenty-five pounds ( English accompt ) and his diet the first year, and also to allow him what more may come in by ye schooling of any that come from other parts. The said twenty-five pounds is to be paid ye said Jonas as followeth: Three pounds twelve shillings in butter at six pence ye pound, and seven pounds two shillings in good well sized mer- chantable wampum, that is well strung or strand, or in such comodityes as will suite him for clothing. These to be paid him by ye first of October, and three pound twelve shil- lings in corne, one half in wheat and ye other in Indian, at three and five shillings ye bushel (provided it be good and merchantable), to be paid by ye first of March. Also ten pounds fourteen shillings in well thriving young cat- tle, that shall then be betwixt two and four years old, the one half being in the steare kind,-these to be delivered him when the yeare is expired. And also the two next ensuing yeares To pay the said Jonas Houldsworth Thirty- five pounds ye yeare, with ye foresaid alowance of what may come in by such as come from other parts. The said Thirty-five pounds is to be paid as followeth, viz .: five pounds in butter at six pence ye pound, and ten pounds in such wampum as is above mentioned, or in such comodityes as will suit him,-these all to be paid by ye first of October; and five pounds in corne by ye first of March, the half in wheat the other in Indian, at five and three shillings per bushel (so that it be good and merchantable); and fifteen pounds in well thriving cattle betwixt two and four years old, the half being in ye steare kind,-these are to be delivered when ye yeare is expired (being valued by indiferent men). And the fourth or last yeare to pay the said Jonas Houldsworth forty pounds in such pay as is above mentioned, according to the nature

THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON.

d time proportionablely, and at the foresaid times of more than a friendly partition of common property by yment. Also it is agreed of that firewood be gotten d brought for the schoole when ye season shall require by such as send their children to school; and that the d Jonas Houldsworth shall have liberty yearly for to oose foure men that shall be bound to him for the true rformance of the foresaid engagement."

On reading this document, now 225 years old, one n hardly help admiring the shrewdness of the school- ister in fortifying his rights as to his pay. It has been e boast of this generation that it first established free hools, but it seems the claim is unfounded, for here is free school established in the beginning of the town's story, supported by a general tax on the property of e whole town, payable in the same way that all obliga- ns were discharged in those days.

A school-house was built pursuant to the agreement, r we find that afterward Jonas Aldar and Thomas idmore were appointed to fix the rate or tax to be ised for it.

THE TOWN GOVERNMENT.

From the first settlement of this town, in 1653, down the English conquest of New York and the overthrow Dutch authority, in 1664, a period of eleven years, untington virtually enjoyed an independent govern- ent. Nominally the people during the latter part of is time acknowledged the authority of the Connecticut lony, and applied Connecticut laws and procedure in e administration of justice and in the form of the wn government; but their political relations with Con- :cticut seem to have been more a matter of their own voice than the result of any attempt at coercion on the irt of the Connecticut government.

The Dutch government at New Amsterdam made no ecial attempt during this period to exercise control rer Huntington. The line between the Dutch and nglish had been established at the very date of the set- ement of the town, leaving the whole of Huntington on nglish territory; so that while the towns west of this ive what may be called their period of Dutch history untington has no such history.

The people naturally brought with them and estab- hed here an English form of government, laws, habits id customs. At the town meetings (usually held at me house at the Town Spot) all male persons who were unted as inhabitants were entitled to an equal voice in iblic affairs. One or more of the magistrates presided these meetings. Much time was taken up in making ants of land, usually in small quantities, to inhabit- its, out of the common lands. These grants were made thout consideration, being on account of the common terest which each had in the land as joint purchaser om the Indians, in the proportion each had originally ntributed toward the purchase. It was in fact nothing

consent, so far as it went, the great body of the lands being reserved as a common territory. Lands in Hunt- ington were from the beginning granted by the town to individuals in small parcels, of from six to twelve acres, rarely larger. Whoever will take the trouble to trace the title of a farm of considerable size in this town will almost invariably find it running back to a swarm of small grants from the town, and these grants are of different dates, usually covering a long period of time.

The principal officers were the justices of the peace, constables and overseers. These were the judicial and executive authorities of the town. They held courts and enforced the laws, civil and criminal; they usually levied the taxes, collected and disbursed the same, attended to the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, provi- ded for the poor, laid out and maintained highways, settled controversies as to fences, and generally enforced the orders made at town meetings. These officers were chosen at town meetings except that magistrates were nominated by the people here and appointed at the general meeting of deputies at Hartford.

While there was a majority here who favored acknowl- edging the Connecticut government there was a party opposed to such a course and in favor of entire independ- ence. Among the latter was Richard Latten, a man of mature age, large experience and considerable influence. He was outspoken in opposition to any connection with the New England colonies. At a town meeting held April roth 1660 the issue was brought to a vote, and the result is stated in the record in a few words, as follows: "It was put to vote concerning joining to a jurisdiction." "The major vote was to be under Connecticut juris- diction." This settled the matter and was immediately followed by proceedings against Mr. Latten. He was

The people came together at a town meeting several nes a year and made rules and regulations for their wvernment, and the popular voice decided all public ordered to take all his horses and cattle out of the town lestions. It was in fact as pure a form of democracy anything we find in history.

immediately, under a penalty of £5. He seems to have complied with the order by moving them to Oyster Bay, but continued to reside here a part of the time with his son or friends. To meet this the town further ordered that "if any one entertain Richard Latten, either by gift or for pay, he shall be fined 40 shillings.'

This intolerant spirit seems to have increased, and finally resulted in an order made at town meeting July 6th 1662, which was in substance that no one owning land in the town should alienate or lease any part of the same to another unless such applicant for purchase or lease should be approved by such men as the town ap- pointed for that purpose. The penalty for a violation of this order was fro for each offense. The men chosen to pass upon the merits of applicants were Mr. Leverich, William Smith, Thomas Noakes, Goodman Jones, John Lom, James Chichester and Jonas Wood. It is not probable that this order was long enforced, as little further record is found of it.

No one was permitted to keep a public house, for the entertainment of strangers, unless authorized by the town, and only one such house was permitted. The first hotel keeper in Huntington, as far as 1 know, was

THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON.

Thomas Brush. He was appointed at a town meeting, October 15th 1660, to keep the " ordinary." In 1662 James Chichester was chosen to keep the keep the ordi- nary, and he was re-elected for that purpose annually for several years afterward. His house is believed to have been on the east street of Huntington, the Town Spot.

THE LIQUOR TRADE.

The problem of regulating the sale of intoxicating drinks seems to have early engaged the attention of the settlers here, as will be seen by the following singular order, made at a town meeting in April 1663. After ap- pointing Goodman Chichester to keep the ordinary, which gave him the monopoly of selling by the drink, it was ordered that "no townsman shall sell any strong drink to strangers, but the townsmen have liberty to buy or sell one to another, or of a stranger, to the quantity of a quart, but not under, upon the forfeit of double the conditions was finally prohibited. value of what is bought or sold."

The liquors drank here in those early times were prin- cipally brought from the Barbadoes Islands. They were chiefly rum, sack and wine. Several of the early settlers were interested in this trade with the West India Islands, and accumulated their wealth in it. Thomas Fleet owned as many as forty vessels, and was probably the wealthiest man in the town.

About the year 1658 Thomas Scudder (spelled in the original Skodar), Jonas Wood (of Halifax), Mr. Mathews and Edward Higbee, according to the record, were " equal mates " in fitting out a vessel to the West Indies. Whether they owned or chartered the vessel does not appear. It seems that after their return a quarrel arose among them as to a pipe of rum and several pipes of sack, mixed up somewhat with a dispute as to the beef and pork sent out on the voyage. It would seem that Jonas Wood claimed the rum and sack as his own prop- erty, depriving his " mates " of their share. Upon this Mr. Mathews brought suit against him to recover for himself and his partners their share of the pipes of rum and sack. Mark Meggs (who lived near where the steam- boat dock on the east side of the harbor is located) was a witness concerning the agreement, and he testified that "about August in the year '58, or when he was weeding of Indian corn, Thomas Mathews came to this deponent and desired him to help about a butt of rum and a pipe or two of wines, etc .; " and gives the conver- sation. In the meantime it appears that the rum had been disposed of, probably at a good profit, and the court awarded to the plaintiff damages as follows: "The verdict of the court is, they find for the plaintiff, and that the defendant is liable to pay the debt at 58 pounds 2 shillings and six pence, to be paid in beef and pork, the beef at five pounds the barrel, the pork at 3 pounds 15 shillings the barrel, to be delivered at the waterside in Huntington."

This case was decided January 31st 1659, and from it we learn the price of beef, pork, rum and sack at Hunt- ington over two hundred years ago. Three years after this, Thomas Mathews again brought suit to recover the

price of the rum and sack, against "Joanna Wood, widow and administrator to Jonas Wood, defendant." " Mr. John Simmons, of Hempstead, appeared in the case as an attorney for Joanna Wood, widow, and denied the charge." The names of the jurymen were Thomas Wicks, James Chichester, Thomas Jones, Richard Wil- liams, Stephen Jarvice and Samuel Titus. Mr. John Simmons, however, lost his case, and the jury decided that Joanna must pay for the rum and sack, and forty shillings damages, with court charges. It thus appears that our forefathers began at an early day to trade off beef and pork for rum and sack.

In connection with this trade with the West Indies may be mentioned the fact that one of the chief articles of export was barrel and pipe staves, usually made from white oak timber. The destruction of this kind of wood was so great that its exportation except under certain

MAGISTRATES AND COURTS.

We find from the record that February 4th 1660 John Strickland, Jonas Wood and Thomas Benedict were ap- pointed magistrates, Jonas Holdsworth clerk, and Joseph Jennings marshal. These appointments were probably made in Connecticut, as Huntington continued to send deputies to the court of election there and to forward the names of persons nominated for these positions. Jonas Chichester was chosen for 1663 and was probably the last deputy sent there.

It is not probable that previous to 1663 there were any official records kept of purchases and sales of land. At a town meeting held in that year the following order was made: "Captain Thomas Wicks, Thomas Brush and Isaac Platt are chosen by the town to take a view of all the lands already laid out in fields, and to record the owner and the quantity he has taken up, in the town book; and also these four men have power to dispose of the land into fields or home lots, so as may conduce most to the advantage of those who need lands to improve, and to so lay out as it may not prove prejudicial to the commons, as near as they can to the Town Plot; and to record all such lands so laid out in the town book; and for every acre laid out by these men the persons em- ploying them are, by the major vote of the town, ap- pointed to pay sixpence to the acre." Pursuant to this order records were made in the town books of the "bounds" of the lands of the inhabitants at that time, and of such lands as were granted by these individuals, in the name of the town, to those who hitherto had pos- sessed none.

The first court of which we have any record was held here January 10th 1659. Jonas Wood was the magistrate. Some of the causes were held over to the next court. The court seems to have been held at the house of Jonas Wood, in the eastern part of the village. Some idea may be gathered concerning the manner of transacting legal business from the following: "John Budd against Enoch Higbee, to recover a debt of £20. After hearing testi- mony the court decided as follows: The verdict of the

THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON.

court is, the defendant shall pay the whole sum of £20 according to the bill, and £3 damages, ordinary pay, and the court charges." This John Bud, if the original, was a noted character in his day; if not the original John Bud who came from England and settled in Southold about 1650, he was probably one of the same family. We con- clude that he sold goods, and was probably the first store- keeper in Huntington. It will be noted that the judgment rendered in this case was to be satisfied in "ordinary pay." There was very little gold and silver money in the country; the value of wheat, rye, corn and other articles was fixed by law, and debts were paid in such articles by delivery of the same as money.

In the next case, that of "Jonas Wood halli " against Thomas Brush, "the plaintiff deposeth that Thomas Brush has slandered him in that he goeth about to make him pay money twice, and also charged him with keeping a false book." Edward Frenchone deposed that "the deponent sayeth that he heard Thomas Brush say that he kept a false book." Here follows "the deposition of Goodwife Conklin." She seems to have been a witness for Brush, and gives testimony concerning the truth of the charge of Wood's seeking pay twice. She says "the 45 shillings was paid by her dater, and carried down in a wheelbarrow about the time when Thomas Cedar [prob- ably Scudder] was attending to the mill. Also, that upon going to her he told her there was wampum in it for Good- man Wood; that was after the time of the payment of the five and 40 shillings." After hearing much testimony the court decided as follows: "The verdict of the court is, they find for the plaintiff; and, whereas the defendant has slandered him with that he cannot prove, the de- fendant is to give verble satisfaction in the open corte, or pay five pounds, with all the costs and charges of the court." "Thomas Brush has given satisfaction." Here ends the first slander suit.

There are some points about this record worthy of notice. The term " halli," following the name of Jonas Wood, is sometimes written "hallifax," and distinguished him from Jonas Wood the magistrate, before whom the cause was tried. The terms "goodwife" and "goodman" were common in those days as applied to persons of con- siderable note, something above the common level; they were used much as we now use " Mr." and Mrs.," while at that period Mr. was only applied to persons of the highest distinction in the neighborhood. Jonas Wood the magistrate was called and written Mr. Wood. The report of carrying down forty-five shillings in a wheel- barrow sounds ludicrous, but we must remember that such currency as Indian corn, pork and the like must have been weighty. This case shows that justices early had jurisdiction in cases of slander, and that, notwithstanding the old doctrine, "the greater the truth the greater the offense," our forefathers did permit the truth of the words spoken to be pleaded in justification; otherwise Goodwife Conklin's evidence would have been excluded.

As a sample of criminal procedure of that day, before Jonas Wood, we give the case of proceedings against Mary Setten for taking the property of Thomas Higbee.

It seems that Mary stole some clothing and biscuits of Higbee, and hid them away in the barn. She also " confessed " to Mr. Wood, Mr. Strickland and Thomas Benedict that she corresponded with a " negar of Mr. Matthews," for which offense the court adjudged "that Mary Setten be brought forth the next training day, to be appointed by the magistrate, to proclaim before the town the crime proven against her."

EARLY MILLS.

The first mill erected in Huntington was built by Wil- liam Leverich, about 1657. It was situated on the north side of what is now called Mill Dam lane, between Hunt- ington village and the harbor, a few rods west of where the stream now flows under the bridge and at the west side of a meadow lot now owned by H. G. Scudder. The remains of what was once the old mill race at the west side of this lot can now be easily traced. The water power which propelled the mill was obtained by putting . in a dam across the low meadow from the high ground on the east to that on the west, on the line of the highway now called Mill Dam lane. Thus obstructed, the stream coming from the south overflowed a wide space of swampy ground, making a large pond, which covered all the low ground at the south through which New York avenue now runs, and nearly as far east as to the east street. A very considerable water power was thus ob- tained. Mr. Leverich sold the mill to William Ludlam December 21st 1659.

While Mr. Ludlam owned the mill a circumstance oc- curred which shows that the courts in those days had an equity side. October 26th 1660 William Ludlam appears as plaintiff, "against Henry Whitney, defendant, in an action of trespass for breaking the mill and grinding several times without his leave, to his great damage. The defendant denying the breaking of the mill, but confessed he opened the door and went and ground his corn, his family being all sick; he went to inquire for the key but could not hear of it, for he was gone to the south and his family with him. Being like to famish he was constrained to do it, yet notwithstanding he gave the miller his just toll. The verdict of the court is for the defendant, that he was necessitated to do as he did, and the plaintiff suffered no damage."

June 13th 1667 Ludlam sold the mill to Mark Meggs, who owned it and ground the corn of the town until 1672, when he sold it to the town and it became a town mill. Three years afterward, owing to the sickness which prevailed in the vicinity, believed to have been occasioned by the malaria arising from so large a pond of fresh water in the midst of the settlement, the town ordered the dam cut away and the pond let out. This mill was never used afterward, and the extensive tract of low lands where the pond had been was divided out to the original proprietors of the purchase according to their respective interests. The toll, or compensation for grind- ing, at this mill was fixed at the twelfth part of the grain ground.

The old mill built by Mr. Leverich having ceased

THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON.

grinding in consequence of the removal of the dam, the Dr. Platt conceived the idea of a tide-mill lower down, and procured a grant from the trustees of the right to construct a dam across the head of Huntington Harbor and by flood gates control the water so as to furnish people were compelled to take some public action to se- cure the construction of another mill in a new place. This was done at a town meeting held January 30th 1674. "It was voted and agreed by the major part of the power for a mill. This was the origin of the present mill town that men should go to Cow Harbor to view and try and mill pond on the west side of Huntington Harbor now owned and operated by Daniel Smith. The trus- tees bound Dr. Platt to provide a strong mill dam; to construct race-ways for the water, to build a mill and grind grain for one-tenth toll, and also to operate his other or upper mill so as to furnish sufficient milling facility for the town. Dr. Platt seems to have carried out all the promises of the agreement. In 1763 he sold the mill and all the rights appertaining to it to John Brush, and it was afterward known as Brush's mill. the stream and place on the north side of Epenetus ground whether it were capable of having a mill there, and if it were found suitable for such a purpose that then they would have a mill there." It was also agreed that the charge of building 'such mill should be according to hundreds; also, that two shillings and six pence per day be paid for workmen on the mill and six shillings for a man and team; and Epenetus Platt, Jonathan Rogers, Mr. Wood and John Sammis were appointed overseers of the work.

It is difficult to tell just where this mill was located. Possibly it was at the head of Cow Harbor (Northport), or it may have been at the head of Little Cow Harbor (now Centerport). Goodman Webb, of Norwalk, Conn., a millwright who had worked on the first mill, was sent for and he put in the machinery.

Having provided a mill the next step was to procure a miller. The town authorities sent to Southampton for Jeremiah Smith and offered him grants of land and special privileges if he would come and take charge of their mill. He came in 1676 and was employed and paid by the town authorities. In 1677 the constables and overseers sold this mill to him on certain conditions, among others that he should "supply the town with. sufficient good meal, and shall grind whenever the inhabitants shall bring him corn, and for his tolle he shall have the twelfth of Indian corn and the sixteenth of English grain;" and that if he took more "tolle" he should forfeit the mill.

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.