Person:Ephraim Newton (8)

m. 30 Dec 1679
  1. Daniel Newton1681 -
  2. Benjamin Newton1683 -
  3. Susanna Newton1684 -
  4. Isaac Newton1686/87 - 1754
  5. Ephraim Newton1689 - Bef 1760
  6. Abraham Newton1691 - Bef 1742
  7. Mary Newton1693 - 1711
  8. Samuel Newton1695 -
  9. Nathaniel Newton1697 -
  10. Lydia Newton1699 -
  11. Mercy Newton1702 -
m. 29 May 1711
  1. Sarah Newton1711/12 -
  2. Azubah Newton1713 - 1776
  3. Nahum Newton1715 -
  4. Tabitha Newton1717/18 -
  5. Susanna Newton1719/20 -
  6. Bathsheba Newton1723 -
  7. Hannah Newton1725 -
  8. Mary Newton1727 - Bef 1760
  9. Ephraim Newton1729 - 1729
  10. Mercy Newton1730 -
Facts and Events
Name[2] Ephraim Newton
Gender Male
Birth[1] 12 Feb 1689 Marlborough, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 29 May 1711 Marlborough, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United Statesto Christian Ripley
Death[2] Bef 5 Mar 1760 Leicester, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Marlborough, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Marlborough, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Worcester, Massachusetts: Franklin P. Rice, 1908)
    137.

    NEWTON, Ephraim, s. Daniel and Susanah, [born] Feb. 12, 1689.

  2. 2.0 2.1 Leonard, Ermina Elizabeth (Newton). Newton Genealogy: Genealogical, biographical, historical, being a record of the descendants of Richard Newton of Sudbury and Marlborough, Massachusetts 1638, with genealogies of families descended from the immigrants Rev. Roger Newton of Milford, Connecticut, Thomas Newton of Fairfield, Connecticut, Matthew Newton of Stonington, Connecticut, Newtons of Virginia, Newtons near Boston. (De Pere, Wisconsin: B. A. Leonard, 1915)
    p. 504.

    Ephraim Newton [#157], s/o Daniel Newton and Susanna Morse, b. Marlborough 12 Feb 1689, d. Leicester abt. later part of Feb 1760/1 [probate 43148 document quoted by source, dated 5 Mar 1760, saying it is inconvenient for widow to attend the court], m. Marlborough 29 May 1710 Christian Ripley.
    [Note: this source notes town records give marriage as 1711, but does not explain why it insists on 1710. Presumably, it is due to not properly double-dating Sarah's birth recorded as 15 Feb 1711, i.e., interpreting this as 1710/11 instead of the proper 1711/12?]