Family:Joseph Herrick and Sarah Leach (1)

Watchers
Facts and Events
Marriage[1][2][3][5] 7 Feb 1665/66 Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
Children
BirthDeath
1.
2.
3.
4.
References
  1. Leach, F. Phelps (Fayette Phelps). Lawrence Leach of Salem, Massachusetts and some of his Descendants. (East Highgate, Vermont: F. Phelps Leach (Printed by The Messenger Press, St. Albans, Vermont), 1924-1926)
    Vol. 1 page 9-10, 1924.

    Sarah Leach m. 7 Feb 1665 Joseph Herrick Esq.

  2. Stinchfield, John Clark. History of the town of Leeds, Androscoggin County, Maine: from its settlement, June 10, 1780. (Lewiston, Maine: Press of Lewiston Journal Company, 1901)
    page 202.

    Joseph Herrick m. (1) 7 Feb 1666-7 [sic, see vital records] Sarah Leach, d/o Richard Leach of Salem.

  3. Upham, Charles W. (Charles Wentworth). Salem witchcraft: with an account of Salem Village, and a history of opinions on witchcraft and kindred subjects. (Williamstown, Massachusetts: Corner House Publishers, 1971)
    P.153-154.

    Joseph Herrick, s/o Henry Herrick, m. 7 Feb 1667 [sic, see vital records] Sarah, d/o Richard Leach.

  4.   Herrick, Jedediah, and Lucius Carroll Herrick. Herrick genealogy: a genealogical register of the name and family of Herrick, from the settlement of Henerie Hericke in Salem, Massachusetts, 1629 to 1846; with a concise notice of their English ancestry. (Columbus, OH: [s.n.], 1885)
    p. 210.

    Joseph Herrick [V 2] m. (1) 7 Feb 1666-7 Template:Addedcommnent Sarah, d/o Richard Leach of Salem.

  5. Beverly, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Beverly, Massachusetts, to the End of Year 1849. (Topsfield, Massachusetts, 1906-07)
    Vol. 2, p. 188.

    LEACH, Sarah, and Joseph Herrick, Feb. 7, 1665.
    [Note: assumed to be 1665/66 based on typical practice and first child not until 1667. The original appears to be here, second entry on right side says "Joseph herrick and Sarah Leach were married the 7th day of february 1665". One town copy, p. 113, a transcription, and another p. 65 organized into family groups, appear to give the same date. The reason for the 1666-67 date is unknown and appears erroneous.]