Person:Roger Barton (4)

«i»

"ROGER BARTON (1) In 1655 the town of Brookhaven, Long Island was settled f rom Connecticut and was claimed as part of the Connecticut colony from 1661. On 23 October 1662 Roger Barton was one of four men appointed to lay out the town. He signed a deed there as a recorder in 1664, and in the same year a contract to build a mill there.

That Roger Barton had lived in Connecticut is apparent in the Connecticut records in which he was named as a deputy to the General Court on 23 April 1664, and made a Freeman of Connecticut by the General Assembly at Hartford, 12 May 1664. The Brookhaven community was being treated as part of the Connecticut colony. On March 1665/6 (the change from old to new calendar causes this) he was elected to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (McCrackens words) at a convention in Hempstead called by the governor of New York. There was apparently a severe dispute over which colony had jurisdiction over this Long Island area, and the Governor of New York ordered the arrest and expulsion of Roger Barton and another Connecticut man, at which point they fled to Connecticut.

The families stayed and Rogers wife Mary petitioned the governor to be allowed to stay unmolested in the family property. In 1670 Roger Barton acquired land at Rye Neck, in what is now the village of Rye, NY but was then considered a part of Connecticut. McCracken described the tract as all the lands [in 1871] bordering on Grace Church Street, north of the road leading to Mamussing Island, as far as the brook and inletΠnear to Port Chester. Roger called this Bartons Neck. [I and my brother and sister will immediately recognize this as land near where our Hoisington grandparents lived from 1910 to 1956, on Kirby Lane, the road leading to Manursing Island. Bartons Neck must have included the old Sackett house and the Guion Road area stretching toward Port Chester harbor.]

In 1678 (20 November) Roger Barton purchased 102 acres from John Archer, Lord of the Manor of Fordham, lying near Brunxes RiverΠfor valuable considerations of money and delivery to Archer of a fat hen every Shrove Tuesday. The Barton family moved to Fordham. Unfortunately the Lord of the Manor had mortgaged all his property to one Cornelius Steenwick of New York City, and had not paid off the mortgage. After his death his widow left the Steenwick assets to the Dutch Reformed Church of New York. In 1682 on July 4 the Town of Westchester tried to insure Roger Bartons claim to his house and land by giving to him the land on the West side of Brunxes River where his dwelling house now stands.

On 28 June, 1688, Roger deeded over his property to his family, to son Elisha Barton, son Elijah Barton, son Roger Barton, wife Mary Barton and on her decease her share to sons Noah, Enoch and Joseph. At this time Roger was 60, hence born around 1628. It would appear that Elisha, Elijah and Roger (junior) were of age while the other three were minors.

The Reformed Church however did not let them enjoy their property in peace. On 16 July, 1688, a couple of weeks after the deeding over, a mob of Church supporters physically attacked the houses of Elijah and Elisha. McCracken gives the colorful description of the action from the records of a Westchester County jury which heard testimony of eyewitnesses two weeks later. One of the mob took a fence rail and broke open the door of Elijahs house, and the mob dragged out his father Roger (who was there in Elijahs absence) and beat him to shouts of Kick him! Kick him in the breech! They then assaulted Elisha in his house. Local residents apparently came to their rescue, and the Westchester County Sheriff convened a jury of 24 on July 31 to indict the attackers, who however had fled his jurisdiction. It is believed that Roger the elder died that year. Son Elijah was not at home during the melee, perhaps because he was serving in the militia (he is recorded serving in 1689-90 at the fort in Albany, NY.)

In 1693 the Reformed Church gave up its claim to the Town of Westchester, which had already in 1682 affirmed the Barton ownership. In 1698 a census of Westchester found Rogers widow Mary living with sons Noah and Joseph

THE SONS OF ROGER BARTON (1) (1628?-1688?) Elisha , born in c. 1662, who defended his house from the mob in 1688, died sometime before 1717. McCracken points out that in 1717, the New York colonial government awarded his brother Elijah money for his service in the militia in 1689-90, but paid it to Noah.

Thus by 1717 not only Elijah but Elisha must have died, since it would have come to Elisha as oldest surviving son had he been living. Voge conjectures that he moved to Burlington County, NJ where Elisha Bartin, yeoman appears in the records in 1694 in Mansfield Township.

This Elisha had a son Thomas, and probably another son who would have fathered an Elisha Barton (1729-1823) of Hunterdon County, and Gabriel Barton, (1732- 1809), of Elizabeth, NJ. Elijah, born c. 1664, probably in Brookhaven, Long Island. He probably was in the militia in Albany when his house was attacked by the mob in 1688. McCracken argues that he must have died before 1717 when New York made its belated payment for his service. Likewise he must have died without issue, or they would have inherited the claim. There seem to be no further records of him, and he likely died in his 20s or 30s without marrying.

Roger (2) (OUR ANCESTOR) was born c. 1666, possibly in Brookhaven or in Connecticut if his mother had moved back there after his fathers expulsion, and must have been of age in 1688 when his father deeded property to him. He is recorded serving in Capt. George Lockharts troop of horse October 1687- 4 August 1688, so he would also have been unavailable to defend the family property from the 1688 mob attack. In 1689 he was a lieutenant in Albany. He married Bridget Palmer shortly after 1692  she had five children by him by 1698 according to the Westchester census. From 1702 to 1709 he was Sheriff of Westchester County. In 1709 he was a Captain in the militia, and in 1714 he led a company on the Canadian expedition of that year (against the French). He may have died on that expedition, because in 1715/16 his estate was inventoried.

His children were: Palmer, b. c. 1693, d. before 1710 Bridget, b. c. 1694 Roger (3), b. 1695 (OUR ANCESTOR) Abigail, b. c. 1696 Elisha, b. c. 1697, Westchester ?Rebecca, b. c. 1698 Noah, the fourth son of Roger(1), was born c. 1668, probably in Connecticut, and died some time after 1737. He was apparently not involved in the riot in 1688. Wife unknown, he had three children: Gilbert, Susanna, and Joseph. Enoch, fifth son of Roger(1), was born c. 1669. There seems to be no information about him. Joseph, sixth son of Roger(1), was born c. 1672, probably in Rye, NY. (See article by Dr. Joshua Lindley Barton, New York Genealogical and Biographical Record v. 59, p. 239 ff.) He married twice and had 13 children. By his first wife, possibly named Rachel, he had Benjamin, John, Mary (a twin of John), Rachel, and Elijah. By his second wife Abigail Lewis whom he married in 1717 he had Thomas, baptized 1718, William, Joseph, b. 1722 or earlier, Millicent, b. c. 1722, Lewis, b. c. 1725, Caleb, b. c. 1725, Sarah, b. c. 1730, and Roger, b. c. 1730"«/i».............Source:  Barton, Allen.  "Jeremiah Barton's Ancestors"   Downloaded  20 June 2009 http://www.bartonsite.org/ANCESTORS.pdf

------------------------------------------------

«i» "ROGER(1) BARTON, the immigrant ancestor from whom this family descends, was probably born in England, and since on 17 July 1688 he testified under oath (Westchester Deeds A-269) that he was then "aged 60 or thereabouts", his birth took place about the year 1628. Though he is often identified with that Barton who on 14 Aug. 1642 signed a lease with the Rev. Everardus Bogardus for the sixty-two acres of the famous farm of Bogardus' wife Anneke Jans, this identification rests upon an error in indexing the still extant document, the real tenant having been Rufus Barton, as is shown in The American Genealogist, vol. 27, no. 3, July 1951, pp. 136-8, under the title of "Rufus Barton, not Roger, In Manhattan 1642".

The first undoubted record of our Roger Barton on this continent is to be found in the town records of Brookhaven, Long Island, where on 23 Oct. 1662 Roger Barton was one of four appointed to lay out the town. The name "Rog. Barton" is signed to a Brookhaven deed, as recorder, on 10 June 1664, and, again, "Rog. Bartones" signed with others a contract to build a mill on "10 mo.12, 1664" (12 Dec. 1664?). He may have been the earliest town clerk of Brookhaven which had been settled from Connecticut in 1655 and joined that colony in 1661. With three others, he is styled "Mr." in these records, a fact which suggests that he was a man of some importance, and his wife, as will appear, is designated as "Mrs. Barton", even in conjunction with another woman who is merely termed "goodwife Bloomer". On 25 April 1664 Roger was named deputy to the General Court and is probably the "Mr. Barton" made freeman of Connecticut at the General Assembly which met at Hartford on 12 May 1664 (Public Records of Connecticut [Hartford 1850], 1.428). On 23 Jan. 1664/5 he was appointed at Brookhaven one of six arbitrators; in the same year fined for absence, and named an appraiser. He purchased land in Brookhaven on 25 Feb. 1664/5; sold a meadow to Henry Perring at an unknown date; and other land to Francis Munsey and Wm. Satierly. In April 1665 he was again appointed one of the deputies to the General Court. Thus far, all the Brookhaven items concern Connecticut and not New York.

At a court, however, held on 31 Oct. 1665 in New York City, the defendant Abram Pietersen Corleyn, accused of selling strong beer to the Indians, gave as his excuse that "Mr. Borton" had given his oral assent thereto (New Amsterdam Records, 5.311). This may, as Mr. Voge believed, be our Roger Barton, for, with one other, Roger Barton was elected on 1 March 1665/6 to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (Fernow, Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 14.565) at a convention held at Hempstead at the call of Governor Richard Nicolls of New York when the East, West, and North Ridings of New Yorkshire were established and the Duke's Laws were put into effect on 11 March 1665/6.

If the reference by Corleyn is to our man, this may be evidence of growing unpopularity, for in May 1666 orders were given by Governor Nicolls for the arrest and expulsion of Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer from Brookhaven. The arrest appears to have been resisted, for on 22 May 1666 Governor Nicolls issued a commission to Messrs. Mathias Nicolls (no relation to Richard), William Wells, and Jonas Wood, "to Examine into the Riotous misdemeanors of some p[er]sons in Seatalcott". The commission makes clear that the constable had been hindered in the exercise of his duties by "some ill affected p[er]sons" who "did riotously Affront and Assault him, and wounded others who came to his Assistance, And withall, then and there (as also at severall other Times,) have given out and used evill words and speeches, tending to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the Peace of this Government". The three commissioners, who were, respectively, "Secretary of the Councell", "high Sheriffe of Yorkshire upon Long Islan[d]", and "Justice of the Peace of the East Riding", were to investigate the matter thoroughly, and were authorized to call before them Richard Odiell (Woodhull, not otherwise mentioned), Roger Barton, and Robert Bloomer, or any other persons.

Accordingly, the three commissioners conducted their investigation and "having taken vpon Oath severall Depositions wherein Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer are proved Guilty of severall Crimes tending to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the peace of this Government", Messrs. Nicolls and Wells issued a warrant to M[r]. Daniell Lane and Mr. John Tucker of Seatalcott for the arrest of Barton and Bloomer under date of 27 May 1666. An official proclamation outlawing the two men was issued on the 31st and on the next day Mathias Nicolls wrote to Lane and Tucker a letter in which he informed them that on that morning "Mrs. Barton" had presented the Governor "one Petition on behalfe of her selfe and Children, and another from Bloomers wife. The Governor informed her that he could do nothing for either woman until the expiration of the time limited in the proclamation for their husbands' coming in. Nicolls told his correspondents, however, that the Governor was pleased to permit them to "make use of any necessaryes, out of their Husbands Estates, for their, and their Childrens Subsistence". The women were to be used civilly, to be allowed to care for their property, but an account was to be rendered to prevent embezzlement.

The official proclamation outlawing the two men indicates that they, "being Conscious of their guilt, and apprehensive of the Punishmt their crimes may deserve", had "withdrawne themselves from their Habitations" and "are fled away". Thus far, we have been following the original record in the State Library at Albany. The two men probably escaped to Connecticut, leaving their families behind them, for there is a record that in 1666 the constable sold some of their household goods "to pay the charge of the Commissioners". A Court of Sessions, held at Southold (Brookhaven Records, 1.109) on 2-4 June 1669, repeats the same story and the Governor, Council, and Court now levied a fine of ££50 through the sale or the estates, any residue to be returned for the relief of the families. Mrs. Barton had been required to pay ££13/4 to the Commissioners, Goodwife Bloomer ££13/10. Bloomer's property was sold by the Sheriff for ££20, out of which he gave ££12 to his wife Rachel, but nothing is said of what was done with Barton's land in Brookhaven. The whole controversy was doubtless a question of which colony should control Brookhaven. A letter of John Allyn, Secretary of Connecticut, to Governor Nicolls of New York, dated 1 Feb. 1664/5 (Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 3.88), refers to trouble at Seatalcott, perhaps earlier stages of the Barton-Bloomer difficulties.

It may be that Connecticut was the place of refuge to which the men fled, but the only record found which possibly connects Roger Barton with Connecticut after 1666 is contained in an allusion in the Minutes of the Hartford Town Meeting for 1677 (Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc., 6.183): "The Townsmen for thatt yeare were deptor by sum Cloath giune for the Towns vse by Squire Battaine 06-06-00, but this may be another man, even a different name.

It will have been noted above that in 1666 Roger Barton and his wife, her name unknown, had children, number not specified. The wife who suffered so nobly at Seatalcott was, for all we know to the contrary, the Mary Barton who survived Roger when he died about 1688 and was still living in Westchester with his sons Noah and Joseph in 1698. Her surname has not been recovered. A descendant states (Nat. Soc. Daughters of Founders and Patriots, 19.88), without documentation, that Mary was a Lounsberry. A correspondent has claimed that Mrs. Roger Barton was daughter of Richard Lounsbury of Rye who dated his will 2 June 1690, probated (Westchester Deeds, B-188) 24 Oct. 1694, and further, that the will refers to testator's daughter "Mary, wife of Roger Barton, deceased. The will does mention Mary but without reference to her being married or not, and it is known from the will of John Haddam of Westchester (Pelletreau, Westchester Wills, p. 391), probated in 1700, that Mary Lounsbury was the wife in 1700 of Israel Rogers. Mrs. Winifred Lovering Holman informs me that Richard Lounsbury, father of Mary Lounsbury Rogers, married by license, 1 Aug 1670, Elizabeth Penrye (Penoyer), who on 8 Jan. 1677/8 was recorded as aged 24, i.e., born in 1653 or thereabouts. A woman born in 1653, married at 17 in 1670, could hardly be the mother of another woman who as early as 1666 was the mother of at least two children. If Mary Barton was really a Lounsbury, we have no evidence of it, and she must have been daughter of some other Lounsbury than Richard of Rye. No record of the marriage of Roger Barton to Mary --- has been found in Connecticut or. New York, and the probability is that they were already married when they crossed the Atlantic. Mr. Voge has pointed out that though, except for an early connection with Connecticut, Roger Barton himself does not exhibit strong Puritan characteristics, the names of several of his sons do (Elisha, Elijah, Noah, and Enoch) and it may be that Mary Barton was of Puritan stock.

About 1670, it is said by Charles W. Baird ("History of Rye" [New York, 1871], pp. 52 f.) that Roger Barton acquired land at Rye Neck, then part of Connecticut, and gave it the name of Barton s Neck, i.e., "all the lands . . . [in 1871] . . . bordering on Grace Church Street, north of the road leading to Mamussing Island, as far as the brook and inlet above Dr. Sands' house, near to Port Chester . No Barton deeds for this area have been found in Westchester records and it is probable that, if extant, they lie hidden in some Connecticut archive. Whatever the truth about the period at Rye, Roger Barton purchased on 20 Nov 1678, from John Archer, first Lord of the Manor of Fordham, a tract of 102 acres "Iying near Brunxes River, commonly called the Great Plain, within the bounds of the said manor" together with a sixteenth part of the salt meadow and a share of fresh meadow adjoining the "Nursery Swamp". This land was assigned to Barton for various causes and more especially valuable considerations of money", but as a token payment signifying enfeoffment, Barton and his heirs and assigns were obligated to pay Archer and his heirs and assigns, every Shrove Tuesday, at the Manor House of Fordham, a fat hen. Similarly, at the same time (see Harry C. W. Melick, "The Manor of Fordham and Its Founder" [New York, 1950], pp. 92-4) Archer also sold similar tracts to Thomas Statham, John Conklin, Jeremiah Cannife, William Jones, Jonathan Hudson, and Nathaniel Stevens. According to Mr. Melick, Barton and Statham, at least, gave bonds to Archer, neither of which had been satisfied by 1688 (op. cit., pp. 114 f.).

Barton's deed for this transaction, not recorded until 2 Dec. 1700, long after the grantee's death (Westchester Deeds, C-68-70), contains the statement that Archer had permission of Cornelius Steenwyck to sell the property, and Steenwyck actually signed the Barton deed with Archer. The reason was, of course, the fact that at various times Archer had mortgaged the Manor to Steenwyck, the currently unsatisfied mortgage being dated 24 Nov. 1676 (Melick, op. cit., p. 88). At Archer's death (before 20 Nov. 1684) this mortgage was still unsatisfied, and on the last-named date, Steenwyck bequeathed his interest in the Manor; with the written consent of his wife (Margarieta de Riemer), to the Nether Dutch Reformed Church in Manhattan, the will being probated 8 May 1685. On 20 Oct. 1686, however, matters were further complicated by the fact that the widow Margarieta de Riemer Steenwyck married secondly, the Rev. Henricus Selyns, minister of that church which now was ultimately to gain title to the unsold part of the Manor of Fordham. As has been stated, Mr. Melick claims on the basis of the records now preserved in the Archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York, that Barton's bond was still unsatisfied on 30 Oct. 1688 (op. cit., pp. 114 f.), which is a very curious fact in the light of what we shall see a bit later. Following the purchase of the 102 acres, the Barton family moved at once to Fordham -- there are no Bartons listed in Rye in 1683 (R. Bolton, "History of Westchester County", 2.139) -- and on 25 Dec. 1678 Roger Barton witnessed a land sale by William Davenport of Yonkers (C-353) and on 3 July 1682, when "at Westchester, New Yorkshire", he witnessed the sale of "jades" (horses) -- see N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 45.131, where the name is wrongly spelled "Bartow". On 4 July 1682 the Town of Westchester gave to Roger Barton, yeoman, "within the bounds of the aforesaid town, upon the west side of Brunxes River, one parcel of land where his dwelling house stands" (Westchester Town Records, 1.150). A curious statement, that! It is probably to be explained by the fact that by now, as described by Mr. Melick, the dispute between the Lord of the Manor of Fordham and the Town of Westchester, over ownership of the land on the west side of Brunxes River, had begun; that the town now claimed this part of the Manor land; that, in order to strengthen the town's inhabitants in their tenure of the property, the town now granted to Barton the very land which he had purchased from Archer in 1678. That this conclusion is the correct one will be shown when we come to discuss Roger Barton's final deed as grantor, for there the land he held of the Town of Westchester is described in such a way that it must be identical with the land he purchased from Archer.

Further references to Roger Barton appear in the Westchester Town Records. In November 1684 (1.150) houses to be built are mentioned, and one is located "between Roger Barton and the line of Col. Lewis Morris's [of Morrisania] at the side of the Brook by the South Pond". Roger Barton had witnessed a deed on 18 Oct 1684 (A-119), and on 6 Nov. 1684 he was one of five (others Capt. Richard Ponton, Joseph Palmer, John Hunt, and William Barnesj ordered by the Town of Westchester to visit "Spittin Debell" for the purpose of their meeting Philip Wells, a surveyor, who was to make a survey of the disputed lands (Melick, op. cit., pp. 109-11) Two years later Roger Barton was appointed by the Town Council as one of a committee of three to prevent unauthorized cutting of timber on the town lands (then claimed by Archer, of course) west of Brunxes River (Town Records, 1.3). The dispute between the Town of Westchester and Archer became, as we have seen, after Archer's death, a dispute between the Town and the Dutch Church of Manhattan, and in the summer of 1688 grew quite heated. Some time between 25 May and 28 June 1688, probably in early June, two representatives of the Town of Westchester, Richard Ponton and Edward Waters, evicted Aert Peterse Buys and Reyer Michelsen, both tenants of the Manor of Fordham, the former for twenty years, from the properties they had held, and placed in possession Elisha and Elijah Barton, the two eldest sons of Roger. According to Mr. Melick (p. 113) the persons placed in possession were Roger and Elijah Barton. This is an error, due partly to the fact that when the Dutch learned of this act, they found Roger Barton on the premises, acting as locum tenens for his son Elijah, and partly to a not unnatural confusion of the two brothers who had very similar names. In any case, the error is not Mr. Melick's but his sources', and, as we shall see, the Westchester Court also made the same error, though correct testimony had been presented

ROGER BARTON'S 1688 DEED/WIL This was the situation, then, when on 28 June 1688 Roger Barton made the deed which serves as his will, acknowledged before the court on 24 July 1688 as his own instrument and recorded on 25 July 1688 by Joseph Lee, Register, in Westchester Deeds, Liber A, p. 271 f. Though a deed, as has been said, it has all the earmarks of a will, references to religion, to the "perfitt memory" of the grantor etc., and it provides a life interest for the wife. Moreover, it conveys, by different paragraphs, separate parcels of the grantor's estate, respectively' to three of the sons outright, to the wife for life and after her death to the other three sons. There can be no doubt that the grantor was contemplating death when he made the deed and that it actually served as a will. Following the opening paragraph, allusion is made to the fact that the grantor is disposing of "all Such Temporall Estate as it is made to the fact hath pleased God Almighty to bestow upon me". Then come the specific conveyances: "ffirst of all I give vnto my Son Elishah Barton a parcell of Land being twenty Pole in Width on the west side of the Land I hould of the Towne of Westchester the whole Length of the Tract is Cittuate and being on the East side of the Lott the Towne of Westchester aforesaid gave to Elishah Barton & one third part of the fresh meadow I bought of John Hadden, Senior. "Secondly, I give vnto my Sonn Elijah Barton twenty two Pole wide to the East of Elishah Bartons Land Aforesaid to Runn the whole Length aforesaid [preceding word cancelled] of the said Land with one third part of the aforesaid Meadow. "thirdly, I give vnto my son Roger Barton all that Tract or parcell of Land which was given mee by the ffreeholders and Inhabbitants of the Yonkers Plantation. "fourthly, I give vnto my Deare & Loveing Wife Mary Barton all the rest of the said Tract of land I hold of the Towne of Westchester with all and Singular my Goods, Chattles, Leaces, personall Estate Whatsoever vtensils houshold stuff. Implements and things whatsoever of what nature, kind or property soever the:. same be or can be found within the Gouernment of New Yorke or elswheare with three acres of meadow on Longe Neck being the northmost meadow that is layd out by Bronx River, with the third part or Remainder of the fresh meadow afore Recited to my two sonns Elishah and Elijah for and dureing her natural Life to be at her dispose. "And Imeadiately after her decease to be Eaqually shared betweene Noah Barton, Enoch Barton, and Joseph Barton and if any of the three should depart this naturall Life before that time before Exprest then to be Equally devided betweene the Survivers, Any of them to whom the house and Orchard doe happen to be their shaire is to pay yearely and Every yeare to the Treasurer of the Towne of Westchester one Bushell of Winter Wheat it being for Quitt Rent for the whole Tract I hold of the Towne of Westchester aforesaid". There is a good deal more to the deed, but it says nothing not already expressed in the quotation above, and the deed ends with the following: ". . . I have putt the aforesaid Elishah & Elijah Roger & Mary my wife and after her decease Noah Enock & Joseph in full and Peacable Possession by the Giuft and delivery of one Silver drame Cupp unto my Loveing Wife the which I have given and delivered in the name of possession and seizen of all and Every of the Aforesaid Premisses". The witnesses were Andrew Davis [signed by mark] and Joseph Lee, and the acknowledgement on 24 July 1688 was before John Palmer, Justice of the Peace & Quorum Comitt. Westchester, whom we shall meet again later. On this deed the following comments should be made: (a) though the property granted to Elisha, Elijah, and Mary, would appear to be the Archer tract, otherwise unmentioned, it is, however, called a grant from the Town of Westchester; (b) the nature of the original grant was such as to require, still, the annual payment of a quit rent; (c) nothing is otherwise known of the purchase from Hadden or the grant from Yonkers Plantation; (d) though there is a presumption that, as Mr. Voge claimed, Noah, Enoch, and Joseph were still minors in 1688, that is not stated; (e) the Position of the wife's share is peculiar, and coming after those of the three eldest sons, may reflect the fact that she was a second wife, not their mother, but possibly mother of the three youngest sons who were to inherit her share. The making of this deed at this time seems to suggest, first, that the unsettled conditions created by the land dispute made it extremely desirable to take thought for the transfer of the property to the potential heirs before death itself came; and, secondly, that in the summer of 1688 the health of Roger Barton was such as to make him mindful of the need for leaving his affairs in order. Between the time of the signing of the deed, however, and the acknowledging of it before the justice on 24 July 1688, matters came to a head. There is an extensive account of what happened on 16 July 1688 presented, from the Westchester Town point of view, in Westchester Deeds, Lib. A, pp. 265-70. For an account of the events from the point of view of the Dutch Church, we may cite Mr. Melick's excellent book already mentioned above (pp. 109-119), which is in turn based on a memorandum for Samuel Winder written by Nicholas Bayard, attorney for the Dutch Church, on 18 Nov. 1688, now in the archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York. Except for minor details, the two accounts are essentially harmonious. THE FORDHAM RYOTT From depositions given on 17 July 1688 before John Palmer, the justice of the peace of Westchester, we may piece together what had happened on the day preceding. The deponents and their ages were as follows: Roger Barton, Sr., aged about 60; Elisha Barton, aged about 20; Andrew Davis, aged about 22; Edward Hubbard, aged about 45; Robert Hudson, aged about 48; Thomas Statham, aged about 47; Jacob Vallentine, aged about 25; and Hendrick Verveale, aged about 20. As these depositions are in part repetitious, they may be summarized as follows: The Dutch party who attempted to evict the Bartons seemed to most witnesses to be a "great company", the following being named as present in it: (1) Reyer Michelsen (name also spelled "Reyer Meceale", "Ryer Michaill", "Ryer Micele", "Richard Michaile"), son of Michaill Bastians, and one of those originally evicted by Ponton and Waters; (2) Hendrick Keirson (name spelled also "Kearse" and "Kerse"); (3) the unnamed wife of Keirson; (4) Nicholas Stuyvesant (so spelled in Melick's account but in the Westchester record he is "Stevenson" or "Stevanson" or "Stephenson"); (5) Tunis Deca".«/i»...........Source: "Roger Barton of Westchester Co., N.Y. & Some of his EarlierDescendents" by Geo. McCracken. In NEHGR, Oct. 1952

«i»

"ROGER BARTON (1) In 1655 the town of Brookhaven, Long Island was settled f rom Connecticut and was claimed as part of the Connecticut colony from 1661. On 23 October 1662 Roger Barton was one of four men appointed to lay out the town. He signed a deed there as a recorder in 1664, and in the same year a contract to build a mill there.

That Roger Barton had lived in Connecticut is apparent in the Connecticut records in which he was named as a deputy to the General Court on 23 April 1664, and made a Freeman of Connecticut by the General Assembly at Hartford, 12 May 1664. The Brookhaven community was being treated as part of the Connecticut colony. On March 1665/6 (the change from old to new calendar causes this) he was elected to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (McCrackens words) at a convention in Hempstead called by the governor of New York. There was apparently a severe dispute over which colony had jurisdiction over this Long Island area, and the Governor of New York ordered the arrest and expulsion of Roger Barton and another Connecticut man, at which point they fled to Connecticut.

The families stayed and Rogers wife Mary petitioned the governor to be allowed to stay unmolested in the family property. In 1670 Roger Barton acquired land at Rye Neck, in what is now the village of Rye, NY but was then considered a part of Connecticut. McCracken described the tract as all the lands [in 1871] bordering on Grace Church Street, north of the road leading to Mamussing Island, as far as the brook and inletΠnear to Port Chester. Roger called this Bartons Neck. [I and my brother and sister will immediately recognize this as land near where our Hoisington grandparents lived from 1910 to 1956, on Kirby Lane, the road leading to Manursing Island. Bartons Neck must have included the old Sackett house and the Guion Road area stretching toward Port Chester harbor.]

In 1678 (20 November) Roger Barton purchased 102 acres from John Archer, Lord of the Manor of Fordham, lying near Brunxes RiverΠfor valuable considerations of money and delivery to Archer of a fat hen every Shrove Tuesday. The Barton family moved to Fordham. Unfortunately the Lord of the Manor had mortgaged all his property to one Cornelius Steenwick of New York City, and had not paid off the mortgage. After his death his widow left the Steenwick assets to the Dutch Reformed Church of New York. In 1682 on July 4 the Town of Westchester tried to insure Roger Bartons claim to his house and land by giving to him the land on the West side of Brunxes River where his dwelling house now stands.

On 28 June, 1688, Roger deeded over his property to his family, to son Elisha Barton, son Elijah Barton, son Roger Barton, wife Mary Barton and on her decease her share to sons Noah, Enoch and Joseph. At this time Roger was 60, hence born around 1628. It would appear that Elisha, Elijah and Roger (junior) were of age while the other three were minors.

The Reformed Church however did not let them enjoy their property in peace. On 16 July, 1688, a couple of weeks after the deeding over, a mob of Church supporters physically attacked the houses of Elijah and Elisha. McCracken gives the colorful description of the action from the records of a Westchester County jury which heard testimony of eyewitnesses two weeks later. One of the mob took a fence rail and broke open the door of Elijahs house, and the mob dragged out his father Roger (who was there in Elijahs absence) and beat him to shouts of Kick him! Kick him in the breech! They then assaulted Elisha in his house. Local residents apparently came to their rescue, and the Westchester County Sheriff convened a jury of 24 on July 31 to indict the attackers, who however had fled his jurisdiction. It is believed that Roger the elder died that year. Son Elijah was not at home during the melee, perhaps because he was serving in the militia (he is recorded serving in 1689-90 at the fort in Albany, NY.)

In 1693 the Reformed Church gave up its claim to the Town of Westchester, which had already in 1682 affirmed the Barton ownership. In 1698 a census of Westchester found Rogers widow Mary living with sons Noah and Joseph

THE SONS OF ROGER BARTON (1) (1628?-1688?) Elisha , born in c. 1662, who defended his house from the mob in 1688, died sometime before 1717. McCracken points out that in 1717, the New York colonial government awarded his brother Elijah money for his service in the militia in 1689-90, but paid it to Noah.

Thus by 1717 not only Elijah but Elisha must have died, since it would have come to Elisha as oldest surviving son had he been living. Voge conjectures that he moved to Burlington County, NJ where Elisha Bartin, yeoman appears in the records in 1694 in Mansfield Township.

This Elisha had a son Thomas, and probably another son who would have fathered an Elisha Barton (1729-1823) of Hunterdon County, and Gabriel Barton, (1732- 1809), of Elizabeth, NJ. Elijah, born c. 1664, probably in Brookhaven, Long Island. He probably was in the militia in Albany when his house was attacked by the mob in 1688. McCracken argues that he must have died before 1717 when New York made its belated payment for his service. Likewise he must have died without issue, or they would have inherited the claim. There seem to be no further records of him, and he likely died in his 20s or 30s without marrying.

Roger (2) (OUR ANCESTOR) was born c. 1666, possibly in Brookhaven or in Connecticut if his mother had moved back there after his fathers expulsion, and must have been of age in 1688 when his father deeded property to him. He is recorded serving in Capt. George Lockharts troop of horse October 1687- 4 August 1688, so he would also have been unavailable to defend the family property from the 1688 mob attack. In 1689 he was a lieutenant in Albany. He married Bridget Palmer shortly after 1692  she had five children by him by 1698 according to the Westchester census. From 1702 to 1709 he was Sheriff of Westchester County. In 1709 he was a Captain in the militia, and in 1714 he led a company on the Canadian expedition of that year (against the French). He may have died on that expedition, because in 1715/16 his estate was inventoried.

His children were: Palmer, b. c. 1693, d. before 1710 Bridget, b. c. 1694 Roger (3), b. 1695 (OUR ANCESTOR) Abigail, b. c. 1696 Elisha, b. c. 1697, Westchester ?Rebecca, b. c. 1698 Noah, the fourth son of Roger(1), was born c. 1668, probably in Connecticut, and died some time after 1737. He was apparently not involved in the riot in 1688. Wife unknown, he had three children: Gilbert, Susanna, and Joseph. Enoch, fifth son of Roger(1), was born c. 1669. There seems to be no information about him. Joseph, sixth son of Roger(1), was born c. 1672, probably in Rye, NY. (See article by Dr. Joshua Lindley Barton, New York Genealogical and Biographical Record v. 59, p. 239 ff.) He married twice and had 13 children. By his first wife, possibly named Rachel, he had Benjamin, John, Mary (a twin of John), Rachel, and Elijah. By his second wife Abigail Lewis whom he married in 1717 he had Thomas, baptized 1718, William, Joseph, b. 1722 or earlier, Millicent, b. c. 1722, Lewis, b. c. 1725, Caleb, b. c. 1725, Sarah, b. c. 1730, and Roger, b. c. 1730"«/i».............Source:  Barton, Allen.  "Jeremiah Barton's Ancestors"   Downloaded  20 June 2009 http://www.bartonsite.org/ANCESTORS.pdf

------------------------------------------------

«i» "ROGER(1) BARTON, the immigrant ancestor from whom this family descends, was probably born in England, and since on 17 July 1688 he testified under oath (Westchester Deeds A-269) that he was then "aged 60 or thereabouts", his birth took place about the year 1628. Though he is often identified with that Barton who on 14 Aug. 1642 signed a lease with the Rev. Everardus Bogardus for the sixty-two acres of the famous farm of Bogardus' wife Anneke Jans, this identification rests upon an error in indexing the still extant document, the real tenant having been Rufus Barton, as is shown in The American Genealogist, vol. 27, no. 3, July 1951, pp. 136-8, under the title of "Rufus Barton, not Roger, In Manhattan 1642".

The first undoubted record of our Roger Barton on this continent is to be found in the town records of Brookhaven, Long Island, where on 23 Oct. 1662 Roger Barton was one of four appointed to lay out the town. The name "Rog. Barton" is signed to a Brookhaven deed, as recorder, on 10 June 1664, and, again, "Rog. Bartones" signed with others a contract to build a mill on "10 mo.12, 1664" (12 Dec. 1664?). He may have been the earliest town clerk of Brookhaven which had been settled from Connecticut in 1655 and joined that colony in 1661. With three others, he is styled "Mr." in these records, a fact which suggests that he was a man of some importance, and his wife, as will appear, is designated as "Mrs. Barton", even in conjunction with another woman who is merely termed "goodwife Bloomer". On 25 April 1664 Roger was named deputy to the General Court and is probably the "Mr. Barton" made freeman of Connecticut at the General Assembly which met at Hartford on 12 May 1664 (Public Records of Connecticut [Hartford 1850], 1.428). On 23 Jan. 1664/5 he was appointed at Brookhaven one of six arbitrators; in the same year fined for absence, and named an appraiser. He purchased land in Brookhaven on 25 Feb. 1664/5; sold a meadow to Henry Perring at an unknown date; and other land to Francis Munsey and Wm. Satierly. In April 1665 he was again appointed one of the deputies to the General Court. Thus far, all the Brookhaven items concern Connecticut and not New York.

At a court, however, held on 31 Oct. 1665 in New York City, the defendant Abram Pietersen Corleyn, accused of selling strong beer to the Indians, gave as his excuse that "Mr. Borton" had given his oral assent thereto (New Amsterdam Records, 5.311). This may, as Mr. Voge believed, be our Roger Barton, for, with one other, Roger Barton was elected on 1 March 1665/6 to represent Seatalcott or Brookhaven (Fernow, Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 14.565) at a convention held at Hempstead at the call of Governor Richard Nicolls of New York when the East, West, and North Ridings of New Yorkshire were established and the Duke's Laws were put into effect on 11 March 1665/6.

If the reference by Corleyn is to our man, this may be evidence of growing unpopularity, for in May 1666 orders were given by Governor Nicolls for the arrest and expulsion of Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer from Brookhaven. The arrest appears to have been resisted, for on 22 May 1666 Governor Nicolls issued a commission to Messrs. Mathias Nicolls (no relation to Richard), William Wells, and Jonas Wood, "to Examine into the Riotous misdemeanors of some p[er]sons in Seatalcott". The commission makes clear that the constable had been hindered in the exercise of his duties by "some ill affected p[er]sons" who "did riotously Affront and Assault him, and wounded others who came to his Assistance, And withall, then and there (as also at severall other Times,) have given out and used evill words and speeches, tending to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the Peace of this Government". The three commissioners, who were, respectively, "Secretary of the Councell", "high Sheriffe of Yorkshire upon Long Islan[d]", and "Justice of the Peace of the East Riding", were to investigate the matter thoroughly, and were authorized to call before them Richard Odiell (Woodhull, not otherwise mentioned), Roger Barton, and Robert Bloomer, or any other persons.

Accordingly, the three commissioners conducted their investigation and "having taken vpon Oath severall Depositions wherein Roger Barton and Robert Bloomer are proved Guilty of severall Crimes tending to the derogat[i]on of his Ma.ties Authority, and against the peace of this Government", Messrs. Nicolls and Wells issued a warrant to M[r]. Daniell Lane and Mr. John Tucker of Seatalcott for the arrest of Barton and Bloomer under date of 27 May 1666. An official proclamation outlawing the two men was issued on the 31st and on the next day Mathias Nicolls wrote to Lane and Tucker a letter in which he informed them that on that morning "Mrs. Barton" had presented the Governor "one Petition on behalfe of her selfe and Children, and another from Bloomers wife. The Governor informed her that he could do nothing for either woman until the expiration of the time limited in the proclamation for their husbands' coming in. Nicolls told his correspondents, however, that the Governor was pleased to permit them to "make use of any necessaryes, out of their Husbands Estates, for their, and their Childrens Subsistence". The women were to be used civilly, to be allowed to care for their property, but an account was to be rendered to prevent embezzlement.

The official proclamation outlawing the two men indicates that they, "being Conscious of their guilt, and apprehensive of the Punishmt their crimes may deserve", had "withdrawne themselves from their Habitations" and "are fled away". Thus far, we have been following the original record in the State Library at Albany. The two men probably escaped to Connecticut, leaving their families behind them, for there is a record that in 1666 the constable sold some of their household goods "to pay the charge of the Commissioners". A Court of Sessions, held at Southold (Brookhaven Records, 1.109) on 2-4 June 1669, repeats the same story and the Governor, Council, and Court now levied a fine of ££50 through the sale or the estates, any residue to be returned for the relief of the families. Mrs. Barton had been required to pay ££13/4 to the Commissioners, Goodwife Bloomer ££13/10. Bloomer's property was sold by the Sheriff for ££20, out of which he gave ££12 to his wife Rachel, but nothing is said of what was done with Barton's land in Brookhaven. The whole controversy was doubtless a question of which colony should control Brookhaven. A letter of John Allyn, Secretary of Connecticut, to Governor Nicolls of New York, dated 1 Feb. 1664/5 (Docs. Rel. Col. Hist. of N.Y., 3.88), refers to trouble at Seatalcott, perhaps earlier stages of the Barton-Bloomer difficulties.

It may be that Connecticut was the place of refuge to which the men fled, but the only record found which possibly connects Roger Barton with Connecticut after 1666 is contained in an allusion in the Minutes of the Hartford Town Meeting for 1677 (Coll. Conn. Hist. Soc., 6.183): "The Townsmen for thatt yeare were deptor by sum Cloath giune for the Towns vse by Squire Battaine 06-06-00, but this may be another man, even a different name.

It will have been noted above that in 1666 Roger Barton and his wife, her name unknown, had children, number not specified. The wife who suffered so nobly at Seatalcott was, for all we know to the contrary, the Mary Barton who survived Roger when he died about 1688 and was still living in Westchester with his sons Noah and Joseph in 1698. Her surname has not been recovered. A descendant states (Nat. Soc. Daughters of Founders and Patriots, 19.88), without documentation, that Mary was a Lounsberry. A correspondent has claimed that Mrs. Roger Barton was daughter of Richard Lounsbury of Rye who dated his will 2 June 1690, probated (Westchester Deeds, B-188) 24 Oct. 1694, and further, that the will refers to testator's daughter "Mary, wife of Roger Barton, deceased. The will does mention Mary but without reference to her being married or not, and it is known from the will of John Haddam of Westchester (Pelletreau, Westchester Wills, p. 391), probated in 1700, that Mary Lounsbury was the wife in 1700 of Israel Rogers. Mrs. Winifred Lovering Holman informs me that Richard Lounsbury, father of Mary Lounsbury Rogers, married by license, 1 Aug 1670, Elizabeth Penrye (Penoyer), who on 8 Jan. 1677/8 was recorded as aged 24, i.e., born in 1653 or thereabouts. A woman born in 1653, married at 17 in 1670, could hardly be the mother of another woman who as early as 1666 was the mother of at least two children. If Mary Barton was really a Lounsbury, we have no evidence of it, and she must have been daughter of some other Lounsbury than Richard of Rye. No record of the marriage of Roger Barton to Mary --- has been found in Connecticut or. New York, and the probability is that they were already married when they crossed the Atlantic. Mr. Voge has pointed out that though, except for an early connection with Connecticut, Roger Barton himself does not exhibit strong Puritan characteristics, the names of several of his sons do (Elisha, Elijah, Noah, and Enoch) and it may be that Mary Barton was of Puritan stock.

About 1670, it is said by Charles W. Baird ("History of Rye" [New York, 1871], pp. 52 f.) that Roger Barton acquired land at Rye Neck, then part of Connecticut, and gave it the name of Barton s Neck, i.e., "all the lands . . . [in 1871] . . . bordering on Grace Church Street, north of the road leading to Mamussing Island, as far as the brook and inlet above Dr. Sands' house, near to Port Chester . No Barton deeds for this area have been found in Westchester records and it is probable that, if extant, they lie hidden in some Connecticut archive. Whatever the truth about the period at Rye, Roger Barton purchased on 20 Nov 1678, from John Archer, first Lord of the Manor of Fordham, a tract of 102 acres "Iying near Brunxes River, commonly called the Great Plain, within the bounds of the said manor" together with a sixteenth part of the salt meadow and a share of fresh meadow adjoining the "Nursery Swamp". This land was assigned to Barton for various causes and more especially valuable considerations of money", but as a token payment signifying enfeoffment, Barton and his heirs and assigns were obligated to pay Archer and his heirs and assigns, every Shrove Tuesday, at the Manor House of Fordham, a fat hen. Similarly, at the same time (see Harry C. W. Melick, "The Manor of Fordham and Its Founder" [New York, 1950], pp. 92-4) Archer also sold similar tracts to Thomas Statham, John Conklin, Jeremiah Cannife, William Jones, Jonathan Hudson, and Nathaniel Stevens. According to Mr. Melick, Barton and Statham, at least, gave bonds to Archer, neither of which had been satisfied by 1688 (op. cit., pp. 114 f.).

Barton's deed for this transaction, not recorded until 2 Dec. 1700, long after the grantee's death (Westchester Deeds, C-68-70), contains the statement that Archer had permission of Cornelius Steenwyck to sell the property, and Steenwyck actually signed the Barton deed with Archer. The reason was, of course, the fact that at various times Archer had mortgaged the Manor to Steenwyck, the currently unsatisfied mortgage being dated 24 Nov. 1676 (Melick, op. cit., p. 88). At Archer's death (before 20 Nov. 1684) this mortgage was still unsatisfied, and on the last-named date, Steenwyck bequeathed his interest in the Manor; with the written consent of his wife (Margarieta de Riemer), to the Nether Dutch Reformed Church in Manhattan, the will being probated 8 May 1685. On 20 Oct. 1686, however, matters were further complicated by the fact that the widow Margarieta de Riemer Steenwyck married secondly, the Rev. Henricus Selyns, minister of that church which now was ultimately to gain title to the unsold part of the Manor of Fordham. As has been stated, Mr. Melick claims on the basis of the records now preserved in the Archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York, that Barton's bond was still unsatisfied on 30 Oct. 1688 (op. cit., pp. 114 f.), which is a very curious fact in the light of what we shall see a bit later. Following the purchase of the 102 acres, the Barton family moved at once to Fordham -- there are no Bartons listed in Rye in 1683 (R. Bolton, "History of Westchester County", 2.139) -- and on 25 Dec. 1678 Roger Barton witnessed a land sale by William Davenport of Yonkers (C-353) and on 3 July 1682, when "at Westchester, New Yorkshire", he witnessed the sale of "jades" (horses) -- see N.Y. Gen. & Biogr. Rec., 45.131, where the name is wrongly spelled "Bartow". On 4 July 1682 the Town of Westchester gave to Roger Barton, yeoman, "within the bounds of the aforesaid town, upon the west side of Brunxes River, one parcel of land where his dwelling house stands" (Westchester Town Records, 1.150). A curious statement, that! It is probably to be explained by the fact that by now, as described by Mr. Melick, the dispute between the Lord of the Manor of Fordham and the Town of Westchester, over ownership of the land on the west side of Brunxes River, had begun; that the town now claimed this part of the Manor land; that, in order to strengthen the town's inhabitants in their tenure of the property, the town now granted to Barton the very land which he had purchased from Archer in 1678. That this conclusion is the correct one will be shown when we come to discuss Roger Barton's final deed as grantor, for there the land he held of the Town of Westchester is described in such a way that it must be identical with the land he purchased from Archer.

Further references to Roger Barton appear in the Westchester Town Records. In November 1684 (1.150) houses to be built are mentioned, and one is located "between Roger Barton and the line of Col. Lewis Morris's [of Morrisania] at the side of the Brook by the South Pond". Roger Barton had witnessed a deed on 18 Oct 1684 (A-119), and on 6 Nov. 1684 he was one of five (others Capt. Richard Ponton, Joseph Palmer, John Hunt, and William Barnesj ordered by the Town of Westchester to visit "Spittin Debell" for the purpose of their meeting Philip Wells, a surveyor, who was to make a survey of the disputed lands (Melick, op. cit., pp. 109-11) Two years later Roger Barton was appointed by the Town Council as one of a committee of three to prevent unauthorized cutting of timber on the town lands (then claimed by Archer, of course) west of Brunxes River (Town Records, 1.3). The dispute between the Town of Westchester and Archer became, as we have seen, after Archer's death, a dispute between the Town and the Dutch Church of Manhattan, and in the summer of 1688 grew quite heated. Some time between 25 May and 28 June 1688, probably in early June, two representatives of the Town of Westchester, Richard Ponton and Edward Waters, evicted Aert Peterse Buys and Reyer Michelsen, both tenants of the Manor of Fordham, the former for twenty years, from the properties they had held, and placed in possession Elisha and Elijah Barton, the two eldest sons of Roger. According to Mr. Melick (p. 113) the persons placed in possession were Roger and Elijah Barton. This is an error, due partly to the fact that when the Dutch learned of this act, they found Roger Barton on the premises, acting as locum tenens for his son Elijah, and partly to a not unnatural confusion of the two brothers who had very similar names. In any case, the error is not Mr. Melick's but his sources', and, as we shall see, the Westchester Court also made the same error, though correct testimony had been presented

ROGER BARTON'S 1688 DEED/WIL This was the situation, then, when on 28 June 1688 Roger Barton made the deed which serves as his will, acknowledged before the court on 24 July 1688 as his own instrument and recorded on 25 July 1688 by Joseph Lee, Register, in Westchester Deeds, Liber A, p. 271 f. Though a deed, as has been said, it has all the earmarks of a will, references to religion, to the "perfitt memory" of the grantor etc., and it provides a life interest for the wife. Moreover, it conveys, by different paragraphs, separate parcels of the grantor's estate, respectively' to three of the sons outright, to the wife for life and after her death to the other three sons. There can be no doubt that the grantor was contemplating death when he made the deed and that it actually served as a will. Following the opening paragraph, allusion is made to the fact that the grantor is disposing of "all Such Temporall Estate as it is made to the fact hath pleased God Almighty to bestow upon me". Then come the specific conveyances: "ffirst of all I give vnto my Son Elishah Barton a parcell of Land being twenty Pole in Width on the west side of the Land I hould of the Towne of Westchester the whole Length of the Tract is Cittuate and being on the East side of the Lott the Towne of Westchester aforesaid gave to Elishah Barton & one third part of the fresh meadow I bought of John Hadden, Senior. "Secondly, I give vnto my Sonn Elijah Barton twenty two Pole wide to the East of Elishah Bartons Land Aforesaid to Runn the whole Length aforesaid [preceding word cancelled] of the said Land with one third part of the aforesaid Meadow. "thirdly, I give vnto my son Roger Barton all that Tract or parcell of Land which was given mee by the ffreeholders and Inhabbitants of the Yonkers Plantation. "fourthly, I give vnto my Deare & Loveing Wife Mary Barton all the rest of the said Tract of land I hold of the Towne of Westchester with all and Singular my Goods, Chattles, Leaces, personall Estate Whatsoever vtensils houshold stuff. Implements and things whatsoever of what nature, kind or property soever the:. same be or can be found within the Gouernment of New Yorke or elswheare with three acres of meadow on Longe Neck being the northmost meadow that is layd out by Bronx River, with the third part or Remainder of the fresh meadow afore Recited to my two sonns Elishah and Elijah for and dureing her natural Life to be at her dispose. "And Imeadiately after her decease to be Eaqually shared betweene Noah Barton, Enoch Barton, and Joseph Barton and if any of the three should depart this naturall Life before that time before Exprest then to be Equally devided betweene the Survivers, Any of them to whom the house and Orchard doe happen to be their shaire is to pay yearely and Every yeare to the Treasurer of the Towne of Westchester one Bushell of Winter Wheat it being for Quitt Rent for the whole Tract I hold of the Towne of Westchester aforesaid". There is a good deal more to the deed, but it says nothing not already expressed in the quotation above, and the deed ends with the following: ". . . I have putt the aforesaid Elishah & Elijah Roger & Mary my wife and after her decease Noah Enock & Joseph in full and Peacable Possession by the Giuft and delivery of one Silver drame Cupp unto my Loveing Wife the which I have given and delivered in the name of possession and seizen of all and Every of the Aforesaid Premisses". The witnesses were Andrew Davis [signed by mark] and Joseph Lee, and the acknowledgement on 24 July 1688 was before John Palmer, Justice of the Peace & Quorum Comitt. Westchester, whom we shall meet again later. On this deed the following comments should be made: (a) though the property granted to Elisha, Elijah, and Mary, would appear to be the Archer tract, otherwise unmentioned, it is, however, called a grant from the Town of Westchester; (b) the nature of the original grant was such as to require, still, the annual payment of a quit rent; (c) nothing is otherwise known of the purchase from Hadden or the grant from Yonkers Plantation; (d) though there is a presumption that, as Mr. Voge claimed, Noah, Enoch, and Joseph were still minors in 1688, that is not stated; (e) the Position of the wife's share is peculiar, and coming after those of the three eldest sons, may reflect the fact that she was a second wife, not their mother, but possibly mother of the three youngest sons who were to inherit her share. The making of this deed at this time seems to suggest, first, that the unsettled conditions created by the land dispute made it extremely desirable to take thought for the transfer of the property to the potential heirs before death itself came; and, secondly, that in the summer of 1688 the health of Roger Barton was such as to make him mindful of the need for leaving his affairs in order. Between the time of the signing of the deed, however, and the acknowledging of it before the justice on 24 July 1688, matters came to a head. There is an extensive account of what happened on 16 July 1688 presented, from the Westchester Town point of view, in Westchester Deeds, Lib. A, pp. 265-70. For an account of the events from the point of view of the Dutch Church, we may cite Mr. Melick's excellent book already mentioned above (pp. 109-119), which is in turn based on a memorandum for Samuel Winder written by Nicholas Bayard, attorney for the Dutch Church, on 18 Nov. 1688, now in the archives of the Collegiate Church of the City of New York. Except for minor details, the two accounts are essentially harmonious. THE FORDHAM RYOTT From depositions given on 17 July 1688 before John Palmer, the justice of the peace of Westchester, we may piece together what had happened on the day preceding. The deponents and their ages were as follows: Roger Barton, Sr., aged about 60; Elisha Barton, aged about 20; Andrew Davis, aged about 22; Edward Hubbard, aged about 45; Robert Hudson, aged about 48; Thomas Statham, aged about 47; Jacob Vallentine, aged about 25; and Hendrick Verveale, aged about 20. As these depositions are in part repetitious, they may be summarized as follows: The Dutch party who attempted to evict the Bartons seemed to most witnesses to be a "great company", the following being named as present in it: (1) Reyer Michelsen (name also spelled "Reyer Meceale", "Ryer Michaill", "Ryer Micele", "Richard Michaile"), son of Michaill Bastians, and one of those originally evicted by Ponton and Waters; (2) Hendrick Keirson (name spelled also "Kearse" and "Kerse"); (3) the unnamed wife of Keirson; (4) Nicholas Stuyvesant (so spelled in Melick's account but in the Westchester record he is "Stevenson" or "Stevanson" or "Stephenson"); (5) Tunis Deca".«/i»...........Source: «i»"Roger Barton of Westchester Co., N.Y. & Some of his EarlierDescendents«/i»" by Geo. McCracken. In NEHGR, Oct. 1952

1. ↑ McCracken., George. Roger Barton of Westchester Co., N.Y. & Some of his EarlierDescendents. (NEHGR, Oct. 1952,).
2. ↑ Voge,, Adolph Law. Roger Barton and his Kinsmen. (Paper "Roger Barton and His Kinsmen," read 3 Oct 1937 at the Organization Meeting of Roger Barton's Kinsmen, Cold Spring, Putnam Co., N.).