Barnabas Wines, Jr.
d.bef 1 Oct 1717 Southold, Suffolk, New York, United States
m. abt 1623
Facts and Events
The genealogy of the Wines family, particular of those named Barnabas, seems to get very confused starting with this Barnabas. Because this Barnabas executed an indenture in 1696 leaving all his property to his wife Mary, most older sources seem to assume he died very soon after this date. As a result, to explain subsequent events, an extra generation gets added in to the family tree. For example, Source:Moore, Charles B. Town of Southold, Long Island, Personal Index Prior to 1698, and Index of 1698, p. 130, assumes this Barnabas has died, and in analyzing the 1698 census, puts the son of this Barnabas, Capt. Barnabas Wines3 who d. 1762, age 87 (born about 1675), in the same household with his father's widow, but with no father present and the son as head of household, and further, having a son of his own, Barnabas Jr. (i.e., Barnabas4). Yet else where he says the son Barnabas3 married for the first time after 1698, which would mean he could not yet have his own son. Clearly this is self-contradictory and indicates a mistaken assumption.
Another deed adds to the confusion. Source:Southold, Suffolk, New York, United States. Southold Town Records, 1651-1787, p. 2:455: "This Indenture made the sixth day of April 1713 between Barnabas Wines of Southold yeoman, of ye one part and Samuel Wines of ye same place, brother of ye said Barnabas" wherein Barnabas conveys to Samuel numerous parcels. A footnote is attached to this item by the compiler of the records (Joseph Wickham Case), who says, "The foregoing deed was probably given on the decease of their mother Mary, - the widow of 1st Barnabas - when a division of the estate was by him ordered to be made." Note that this footnote is ambiguous since Anna was the wife of the 1st Barnabas, not Mary. Mary was the wife of the second Barnabas (this one). Both had sons Barnabas and Samuel. This footnote will turn out to be wrong, but that does not prevent it from confusing many researchers, as seen presently.
An article in Source:NEHGR, "Mary (Mapes) Wines, Daughter of Thomas Mapes of Southold, Long Island, New York" by Daniel F. Stramara, p. 159:128, discusses the above indenture in the course of its analysis. It lists several traditional sources, which in general, mostly give a death date before 1713 for Barnabas2, but give no sources to justify their belief. This article points out that the Salmon records (Source:New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, p. 47:,) give the death of Anna, wife of Barnabas, as 7 Feb 1706/07, of Mary, widow of Barnabas, as 13 Jun 1727 (age 89). According to my reading, the article appears to imply that this Anna was the wife of Barnabas1, and her death stimulated the sons (Barnabas2 and Samuel2) to distribute their father's property. Thus the author seems to saying that this proves Barnabas2 was alive in 1713. This logic is incorrect, however, because the Anna who died in 1706/07, appears to be the young wife of Barnabas3! It is not the wife of Barnabas1 who had d. by 1675, and since the wife of Barnabas2 was still living, there was no death of a mother, and thus this not two sons distributing their father's estate. It was just a transaction between brothers.
At this point, all the suppositions that were used to identify who participated in this deed are void. The footnote is so ambiguous as to be useless, and we have determined its core hunch is wrong to start with. We must start over. It seems that the 1696 indenture makes the property of Barnabas2 belong to Mary if he died, and since she lived until 1727, even if he had died, it doesn't seem like it could be Mary's son Barnabas3 selling the property (unaware of any quitclaims by Mary). The only thing that seems possible is that it is Barnabas2 himself selling his own property. So while the logic of the article above was incorrect, it appears that the conclusion was correct, namely that the deed probably does show that Barnabas2 was still living in 1713.
It was further reported in 1995 that the will of Barnabas2 was dated 22 Apr 1708 and was proved 1 Oct 1717, confirming that Barnabas2 did not die in 1696. So it appears that his death was sometime between 1713 and 1717, but certainly we can say that he was alive when the census of 1698 was done, and that it was he living with his own wife in 1698, and that the son Barnabas Jr. listed in his household was Barnabas3. Thus, the Barnabas4 given by Moore is a fiction.
Nearly all sources prior to 1995 that cover this family are incorrect.