JOHN BEACH1 OF NEW HAVEN
A Biography By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.
Reprinted from the Beach Family Journal, Vol. II, No. 2, Summer, 1994.
John Beach, the "Immigrant" or "Pilgrim", first finds mention in the records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven in 1643. His life prior to that time is largely a mystery, although several claims have been made over the years concerning his date of birth and parentage. One source asserts he was born in 1623, "son of Rev. John, of Derbyshire.", Virkus, Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, p. 732. Charles C. McClaughry, author of Genealogy of the Beach Family of Connecticut, states at pages 34 and 36 of that John Beach was "Born 1620" and "Died 1681"; however, the latter is demonstrably wrong and the former is without any known basis. Mahlon W. Beach, in his Beach In Canada, p. 49, declares he "... was born presumably in 1619", but the authority for this is not given. According to the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 8, "Those who claim descent from Benjamin(2) John(1) say that our John was born in England in 1623. Others claim that he was born in 1620 but as no record has been found in England it seems the date of birth is mere conjecture unless it can be based on evidence not yet discovered by the writer"; a conclusion with which few can disagree. For a further discussion of his alleged parentage, See: E. Beach, "Beach of New Haven", Beach Family Journal, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 31-37; Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 50-60.
The question of John Beach's relationship to the other Beaches of early New Haven has likewise been the subject of some speculation. Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. I, p. 144, suggests he was "s. of Richard, of New Haven, if he were not br. as seems prob." On the other hand, R. R. Hinman, A Catalogue of the Names of the Early Puritan Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut, opines he was the son of Thomas Beach1, brother of Richard1. Finally, Deacon Lewis M. Norton was of the belief that John Beach1 and a supposed brother, Benjamin Beach [actually the son of Richard1], were entirely unrelated to Richard Beach1 and/or his brother, Thomas Beach1.
Even the currently held view - that Richard, John and Thomas were all three brothers - is not without its critics who point to the lack of any "hard" evidence for such a relationship. Thus, while Thomas Beach1 is on record as the brother of Richard Beach1, no similar documentary proof exists as to the relationship of John Beach1 to either. Still, the circumstantial case for such a relationship is strong. Both John Beach1 and Thomas Beach1 had sons named for each other, and each likewise had daughters named Sarah. John Beach1 and Richard Beach1 each had sons named Benjamin, and all three had daughters named Mary. When Richard Beach1 became administrator of the estate of his cousin, William Iles, John Beach1 agreed to act as his surety. Both Richard and John Beach likewise moved to Stratford, Connecticut, within a short time of each other. Finally, when John Beach2, eldest son of Thomas1 , was left an orphan after 1670, he either went or was sent to Wallingford, Connecticut, where his uncle John Beach1 and several of his children resided or else owned property at various times.
Almost without exception, the published accounts date John Beach's initial appearance in the New Haven town records as January 4, 1643, when he was fined for defects in his gun and "twice late coming" to milita training, e.g., Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 8; Mahlon W. Beach, Beach In Canada, p. 49; Joseph P. Beach, A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family ["In the year 1643 John Beach is first mentioned... where he is fined for a defective gun.'] What all such authorities fail to consider, however, is the fact that, under the Julian calendar then in effect, the New Year began on March 25. This meant that January, February and March 1 through 24 comprised the last part of the year, rather than its beginning. For a more complete discussion of the differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, See: e.g., Doane, Searching for Your Ancestors, pp. 138-142. Thus, the first true record of John Beach in New Haven is the entry usually regarded as the second mention, i.e., at "A Court held... the 7th of the 4th Moneth, 1643." Since March was considered the "First month" - notwithstanding the fact New Year's day was March 25th - this entry translates into June 7, 1643; not April 7 as the Beach Family Magazine and other published accounts erroneously report.[See: end note 1]
What then of this initial record itself? For one whose descendants include a goodly number of notable judges and attorneys it is, appropriately enough, the transcript of a civil trial in which John Beach found himself the defendant, accused of negligence in the felling of a tree so as to cause the death of a cow belonging to one George Smith. Thus:
"Joh. Beach, haveing killed a cow of George Smyths wth the falling of a tree, the said George required satisfactio., forasmuch as he conceiveth thatt the said John did itt through negligence, butt he the said John Beach alleadged for himselfe, thatt he did nott doe itt negligently, for he being falling a tree, there came some cowes about him, and the tree in falling did rest vpon the bowes of another tree that stoode neare, and then he left the tree, and drave away the cowes as he did conceive wthout the reach of the tree, and in the meane time some goates coming vnder the tree he retourned to drive them away allso, and then came in haste to give 3 or 4 chops att the tree to hasten the falling of itt before the cattell could come againe.
Butt it was testifyed by brother Andrewes and brother Tompson (who were intreated to veiw the cow and the place,) thatt he had nott done whatt in reason he might, and ought to have done to prserve the cattell, and thatt if he had been as carefull as he might, no hurt need have be done, for the place was so hemmed in wth fallen trees as thatt there was little way open, (on thatt side wch he said he drave the cowes) for them to come in att againe, so thatt he might have kept them from danger if he had beene as carefull as he ought to have beene, besides, they affirme thatt the cow was killed about a rod or 20 foote wthin the reach of the tree, moreouer itt was testifyed by brother Andrewes and Robt Campion, thatt he the said John Beach did affirme thatt when he was cutting the tree the last time, he saw the cowes comeing againe, and he did throw sticks att them, butt confessed he did not goe to drive them as before, wch was noted to be a great neglect of him, and allthough he did alleadge in the Court thatt he did drive the cowes wthout the compasse of the fallen trees aforesaid, brother Tompson observed itt to be an vntruth, for he had tolde them att the first, when they went to view the cow, thatt he drave them to such a place, wch both he and brother Andrewes affirme was wthin the aforesaid compasse. Vpon all wch testimony i[t] was ordered thatt the said John Beach shall make good the damage to the vallue of 5L wch price Georg Smyth sett vpon his cow wth much moderatio., though she was really worth more."
Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 88-89.
In an earlier age this record may well have been viewed as somewhat embarrasing. Indeed, the version quoted in the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9, as "furnished by the Rev. E. C. Beach", is highly edited. From today's perspective, however, it should be treasured and appreciated as an all-too-rare glimpse into the "everyday life" of 17th century colonial America. One can readily imagine a young John Beach, attempting to make his start in the New World, setting out to fell a tree, perhaps as timber for a home or else as firewood with which to heat one. Working alone, undoubtedly using the heavy broadax of that day, he succeeds in cutting through the trunk, but the prize does not fall cleanly; its top coming to rest "vpon the bowes of another tree". As if this were not enough, he now finds he must contend with free ranging livestock who, perhaps attracted by the sound of his ax, have wandered into harm's way. First cows, then goats, then cows again must be driven off, with a couple hasty "chops" with the ax in between. Under the circumstances it would not be surprising if a few choice words were hurled at the bothersome kine in addition to the "sticks" which he admitted throwing. All proved in vain, however, as the tree chose an inopportune time to complete its fall, killing George Smith's cow. As it seems likely John Beach had not yet acquired the resources to purchase his own livestock, much less pay the princely sum of 5 pounds as damages for the death of another's, he may be forgiven for attempting to put the events of that late-May/early-June day in the best light possible.
The next mention of John Beach in the early New Haven records is that commonly, although erroneously, regarded as the first, i.e., "Att a Court held att Newhaven the 4th of January, 1643," or 1644 under modern Gregorian reckoning. Its significance lies in the fact that the colony perceived itself surrounded by potentially hostile forces; not just Indians, but French to the north, Dutch to the south, and pirates from the sea. Consequently, every adult male was not only expected, but required by law to own a firearm, maintain it in good repair, and report regularly for drill or training. A failure to do so was punished by a significant fine, as the entry itself reveals:
"Isaack Whitehead, Will Mecar, Thomas Powell, Tymothy Forde, Goodma. Hitchcock, Rich: Webb, Pillipp Leake, bro: Elsey, Jonathan Marsh, Ricd Beech, John Lawrenson, Robt Emery, Will. Iles, Hen: Gibbons, Tho Robinso., Nicholas Gennings, Tho: Yale, John Hill, bro Lamson, fined each 1s for late coming to trayne. And Rich: Newman, John Beach, and James Stewart fined each man 2s for twice late coming.
Richard Newman, Peter Browne, Will Potter, John Beach, Goodma. Ward, John Benham, Isaack Whitehead, Robt Leay, Tho Blakeley, John Medcalfe, bro Lamson, fined each man 2s for defect. guns."
Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 122.
While probably of small consolation to John Beach at the time, the record shows he was certainly not alone in his neglect of military duty. On the contrary, the entry for January 4, 1643/44 continues beyond that quoted above, with fines meted out for "want of shott and pouder", "defect. sworde", "want of match" [the smoldering wick used to fire the guns of that era], "defect. rest" [a rod used to support and steady the heavy match-lock gun], and "totall defect in armes." Moreover, the names on these lists of fines represent a significant percentage of the total male population of New Haven at the time and include several of the town's most prominent citizens.
The next reference to John Beach is that of July 1, 1644, at which time he, along with all other freemen, took the so-called "Oath of Fidelity", swearing allegiance to the "fundamentall order and agreemt" adopted in June, 1639, by which the Scriptures were made the supreme law of the colony, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 139. In view of this oath, not to mention the fines imposed earlier in January, 1643/44, it might be hoped he would henceforth take his civic duties more seriously so as to discharge them more faithfully. As the next reference reveals, however, such was not the case. Instead, at a court held November 4, 1645, it was recorded:
"John Beech & Ambrosse Sutton being sent forth by the mr [i.e., master] of the watch to walke the rounde went into a howse & layed them downe to sleepe, & soe neglected their trust, for wch they were fined 5s apeece."
Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 173.
This time, however, the punishment seemingly had the desired effect, for the old records contain no further entries of a similar nature. On the contrary, John Beach apparently managed to escape public notice altogether until February 1, 1647/48, when he agreed to serve as surety for his brother Richard.
The three Beach brothers were related in some manner to two other early immigrants to New Haven, William and Thomas Iles (Eyles). When William Iles died, Richard Beach served as his adminstrator and, on February 1, 1647/48, petitioned the New Haven court to "retayne the estate... in his hand till further order." To guarantee the estate would not suffer loss as a result, the Court required Richard Beach to post sercurity equal to its value of 13 pounds, 17 shillings. Since Richard Beach's own lands had a value of only 9 pounds, however, the record reveals:
"... and for the other 5L John Beech becometh suretie wth hime, as the said Joh Beech declareth in courte, wch the courte accepted, wth this proviso, that if John Beech should dye or leaue the towne, Richard Beech put in other securitye to the court's satisfaction."
Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 364.
From this it would seem John Beach had by now himself amassed a respectable estate, sufficient to satisfy the court of his ability to make good a debt of five pounds, had that been necessary. Other records likewise attest to John Beach's success; for example, at a court held March 7, 1647/48, "Arther Halbich passeth ouer to John Beech his house and home lott wth all his accommodations thereto belonging wthin Newhauen", Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 370. See also: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9, which quotes an entry for May 21, 1647, not indexed in Hoadly, "Due John Beach from estate of Edward Banister 0-5-11", i.e., five shillings, eleven pence.
The next reference to John Beach is somewhat obscure. At a court held November 12, 1649, it is recorded that "Mr. Thomas Yale and John Beech had libbertie to deppte the court", Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 499. The word "deppte" is presumably shorthand for and/or an archaic spelling of "depart". Thus, the entry would suggest John Beach and Thomas Yale were excused from attending the proceedings. For what reason, however, is unstated.
John Beach next finds mention at a court held December 3, 1650. On that date Thomas Langden stood trial for failing to keep his fences in repair, allowing his livestock to escape and do damage to a neighbor's crop. In his defence "Thomas Langden said Jno Beech his fence was downe also that cattell might come in:..."; an early version of the argument since used by countless school boys and speeding motorists. As the court tersely noted, however, "... he was told all must fare alike:/", Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 52.
The final, active mention of John Beach at New Haven is at a court held August 3, 1652:
"John Beech passeth ouer to Lancelot Baker his house and home lot wch he the said John bought of Arthur Holbich, lying betwixt the house and home lot of Henry Pecke and William Pecke, and 12 acrs of land of the second devission lying on the west side, wch is all the second devission wch belonged to the lot of Arthur Holbich, be it more or less:/"
Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 134.
Having sold his house and lands, John Beach thereafter left New Haven, although the precise date and place of his relocation is uncertain. Elmer T. Beach, in his Beach In America, p. 41, declares "He lived in New Haven till 1650, when he married Mary, and settled in Wallingford, about seven miles north of New Haven. He lived in Wallingford ten years, and his four older children were born there. In 1660 he removed to Stratford..." This is an impossibility, however, since as noted above, John Beach in fact remained in New Haven until at least 1652 and the town of Wallingford would not be founded until 1669-70. Jacobus, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, Vol. I, p. 40, says he "rem. to Stratford, 1652". Compare, however, Orcutt, History of the Old Town of Stratford, Connecticut, Vol. I, p. 136, which states: "John Beach,... came to Stratford and bought his first land here May 21, 1660, of Ens. Bryan of Milford, 'one house lot 2 acres.'" [On the other hand, Orcutt, Vol. II, p. 1123, declares "Beach, John, appears first on Stratford records in 1661."]
Whatever the exact date of his arrival, however, John Beach thereafter finds mention in the Stratford records on a regular basis, mostly with regard to the grant, purchase or sale of lands. For a listing of such transactions See: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 4, pp. 319-320, quoting the notes of Joseph P. Beach, an early family historian and himself a descendant of John Beach1. John Beach further find's mention as an 'inhabitant' on the 1668 list of Stratford freemen, which was "... drawn up by the Governor's order, to straighten out church difficulties, and discover voting rights," Rebecca Donaldson Beach, The Reverend John Beach and His Descendants, p. 132, Compare, however, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9, which dates this list as 1669.
In one often quoted record dated January, 1671:
"John Beach was chosen crier for the town; and to be allowed four pence for every thing he cries; that is to say for all sorts of cattle and all other things of smaller value, two pence."
Wilcoxen, History of Stratford, Connecticut, 1639-1939, p. 217; Orcutt, History of the Old Town of Stratford, Vol. I, p. 136, but with "years" substituted for "pence".
While some interpret this position as that of "town crier" in the sense of night watchman [i.e., "Ten o'clock and all is well!"], the entry, taken as a whole, suggests something more like a public auctioneer for lost or forfeited property, in much the same way a county sheriff today might auction land and chattle seized to satisfy a judgment or fine.
It is also during this period that John Beach finds mention as one of the original proprietors of Wallingford, Connecticut. His name is among those signing the covenant for "ye intended Village", thought to date from 1670 or 1671, Davis, History of Wallingford, Connecticut, pp. 77-78; 85-86. It is said, however, that:
"He seems to have bought in Wallingford with a view to the settlement of his sons there. John Jr., Isaac and Thomas removed to Wallingford, but the first two died in Stratford... As John Beach senior's estate was administered in Fairfield county probate court, he evidently had not transferred his residence to Wallingford."
Davis, History of Wallingford, Connecticut, p. 637.
Be this as it may, the Wallingford records, like those at Stratford, reveal a series of real estate transactions, involving grants of land by the town, purchases, trades and sales. It is indicative of his growing wealth and prominence that, in 1672/73, John Beach was assigned the fourth seat of the highest rank in the meeting house, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 4, pp. 319-320, quoting the notes of Joseph P. Beach. Likewise, when the time came to establish the church in Wallingford, John Beach "Senior" was one of thirteen men chosen "upon the 15th day of the 2nd month [April, in Julian reckoning], 1675", to form the first church at Wallingford, Davis, History of Wallingford, Connecticut, pp. 97-98.
At this point, however, a note of caution is in order with respect to references to "John Beach" at Wallingford since, in addition to John1, the immigrant, his son, John2, John1, born in 1654, as well as his nephew, John2, Thomas1, born in 1655, resided and/or owned property there. Both would have been too young to be the man referred to in the early 1670's, but later entries are less clear. Most authorities assume, for example, that "John Beach Senior" invariably refers to John1, the immigrant, with the title "Senior" serving to distinguish him from his son. It must be remembered, however, that the title "Senior" did not have the limited connotation in 17th century usage generally accepted today, i.e., the father of a child of the same name. It was also frequently used to distinguish the older of two men having the same name whether related as father and son, uncle and nephew, cousins, or not at all. See: e.g., Webster's New International Dictionary, 1923, p. 1920 ["senior... 1. Elder; - often used (abbr. Sr.) after a personal name to indicate the older of two in the family or community bearing the name." (italics added)]. Thus, such references might also be to John2, John1, who was slightly older and thus "senior" to his cousin, John2, Thomas1. In contrast, references to "Goodman" John Beach denote a degree of social standing unlikely accorded any but the immigrant John Beach1, at least during his own lifetime.
In this regard it is frequently claimed that John Beach1 "... had civilian service at the 'Lower Garrison' in King Phillip's War [1675-1676] and it is recorded of him that he 'was of Stratford and returned thither,'" Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9, quoting the New Haven Genealogical Magazine, Vol. I, p. 242. Two entries in the Wallingford records, as abstracted in the notes of Joseph P. Beach, appear to form the basis for this claim. The first, dated October 15, 1675, states:
"It was granted that those persons that live at the end of the town where Mr. Moss liveth, viz, Mr. Moss, Mr. Brockett, Sergeant Doolittle, John Beach, Senr., Eliasaph Preston and Wm. Elnathan, If they see cause to fortify any of their houses which they can agree upon for their safety in these times of danger, that their first charges shall be defrayed out of ye town treasury."
Notes of Joseph P. Beach as quoted in Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 4, p. 320.
The following spring, on March 7, 1675 [1676 under the Gregorian calander of today], these same men were granted leave to belong "to the loer garrison", with John Beach described as the "loer guard of the town", Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 4, p. 319.
Once again, however, the identity of this "John Beach" is questionable, Compare: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. II, No. 2, p. 156. At the time of this conflict John Beach1, the immigrant, would have been a man in his mid-50's, at least, and unlikely to have seen further military service. Consequently, the reference might instead be to John2 John1, who would be of more appropriate age. This seems all the more likely if, as Davis and others suggest, it was in fact John2 John1 who resided regularly at Wallingford on property owned by John1, who himself continued to reside at Stratford.
There is likewise a remarkable degree of confusion over the date of John Beach's death. One source puts it as early as 1667, Wallingford Tercentenary Committee, Founders and Descendants of Wallingford, Connecticut, p. 4. Hibbard, History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, states that he died in 1679, while McClaughry, Genealogy of the Beach Family of Connecticut, p. 36, claims he died in 1681. Finally, Rebecca Donaldson Beach, in The Reverend John Beach and His Descendants, p. 132, suggests he lived until at least 1699 when a John Beach [actually John2, John1] appears on a list of Stratford proprietors.
It is now known, however, that John Beach died June 16, 1677, Jacobus, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, Vol. I, p. 40; Beach Family Magazine, Vol. II, No. 2, p. 156. His estate was probated in the Court at Fairfield, Connecticut, and includes a written agreement by his adult children, dated November 6, 1677, for the division of his assets. This declares that:
"Whereas our honored father John Beach dying very suddenly did also dye Intestate [i.e., without a will]: we his children to prevent any after Trouble: and for the good and benefit of our brethern and sisters not yet come to age have come to this agreement..."
Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 2, p. 258, quoting Fairfield, Connecticut, Probate Records, Vol. 3, p. 21.
The agreement thereafter gives the names and birth dates of the ten children of John Beach; provides for the appointment of guardians for the six children still under age; and sets forth the portion or share of the estate - with a net value of 344 pounds, 5 shillings and 6 pence - each child would receive. In addition to his land holdings in both Stratford and Wallingford, which were considerable, the estate also included such personalty as "Waring apparrle, 9-8-0; 1 bible & other books, 0-7-0; Bedding, linnen, etc; 5 new chairs and 4 old chayrs; 4 Chests;... yarn and spinning wheels & a woollen wheele wool Cards,... armes & Ammunition..."
Little has been said to this point concerning the marriage of John Beach or the identity of his wife. Since his first child, Elizabeth, was born in March, 1652, it is generally agreed he married circa 1650. At the birth of his son Benjamin, in 1674, the name of his spouse is given as Mary, Jacobus, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield, Vol. I, p. 41. With respect to her maiden name and origins, however, there is once more much confusion. McClaughry, Genealogy of the Beach Family of Connecticut, p. 36, declares John Beach "was married in 1650 (about) to Mary (?) a Danish lady." The so-called "Anjou Typescript" [reprinted in Beach Family Journal, Vol. I, No. 4, pp. 85-94], states he married June 3, 1651, Elizabeth Peck, daughter of Nathaniel Peck. Savage, however, in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. I, p. 144, claims he "m. a d. of Thomas Staples, of Fairfield," a view shared by Deacon Lewis Norton in his notes on early Beach history, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 9. This, in turn, has led most genealogists since that time [with the significant exclusion, however, of Jacobus] to identify the wife of John Beach as "Mary Staples", supposed daughter of Thomas Staples of Fairfield. It is unclear, however, whether Staples - himself a contemporary of John Beach - would have had a daughter old enough to have married circa 1650. Even more compelling, however, is the fact John Beach2, John1 is on record as marrying first, at Stratford, Hannah Staples of Fairfield, the daughter of Thomas Staples. Had John Beach1 likewise married a daughter of Thomas Staples, then John Beach2 John1 would have wed his own mother's sister, i.e., his aunt. Since this is clearly impossible, the identity of John Beach's wife must remain an open question unless and until new information is forthcoming. Whomever she was, however, she is not mentioned in the administration of her husband's estate and is therefore believed to have died prior to 1677, possibly soon after the birth of Benjamin in 1674.
ISSUE:
i. ELIZABETH, b. Mar 20, 1652; d. 1692, at age 40; m. Eliasaph Preston of Wallingford, Connecticut as his second wife.
ii. JOHN, b. Apr, 1654; d. 1712 at Stratford, Connecticut; m. 1st, Dec 18, 1679, Hannah Staples of Fairfield, Connecticut, dau. of Thomas Staples, b.c. 1659; m. 2nd, Phebe Wilcoxson, widow of John Birdsey and dau. of William Wilcoxson, b.c. 1651, d. Sep 20, 1743, at age 93.
iii. MARY, b. Sep, 1656; d. Aug, 1722. It is sometimes claimed she m. Simon Tuttle, but this is suspect. See: BEACH FAMILY MAGAZINE, Vol. I, No. 4, p. 108 and Vol. II, No. 2, p. 156, correcting Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 9-10.
iv. THOMAS, b. May, 1659; d. May 13, 1741, at Wallingford, Connecticut; m. 1st, May 13 [but others say May 12], 1680, Ruth Peck, dau. of Paul and Martha (Hale) Peck, b.c. 1660, d. Dec 5, 1686; m. 2nd, Phebe Wilcoxen, dau. of Timothy and Joanna (Birdseye) Wilcoxen, b. Aug 2, 1669, at Stratford, Connecticut, d. Apr 30, 1758. Some early genealogists believed he was a son of Thomas Beach1, but the identity of his true father is now reasonably well established.
v. NATHANIEL, b. Mar, 1662, at Stratford, Connecticut; d. Jul 24, 1747, at age 84 years, 3 months; m. at Stratford, Apr 29, 1686, Sarah Porter, dau. of Nathaniel Porter, b. Sep 3(?), 1667, d. Mar 25, 1738, at age 70.
vi. HANNAH, b. Dec, 1665; m. 1st, Nov 3, 1681, Zechariah Fairchild; m. 2nd, May 5, 1708, Mr. John Burritt.
vii. SARAH, b. Nov, 1667.
viii. ISAAC, b. Jun 27, 1669, at Stratford, Connecticut; d. Apr 30, 1741, at Stratford, at age 71 years, 10 months; m. May 3, 1693, Hannah Birdsey, b. Feb 5, 1671/2, d. Oct 15, 1750, in her 79th year.
ix. JOSEPH, b. Feb 5, 1671/2, at Stratford, Connecticut; d. Dec 17, 1737, at Stratford; m. Abiah Booth, dau. of Ebenezer Booth, b. Oct 19, 1674.
x. BENJAMIN, b. on or about Mar 3, 1673/4; removed to Wallingford, Connecticut, then later to Hanover, New Jersey; m. Mary Hitchcock, dau. of John Hitchcock, b. Dec 10, 1676, at Wallingford.
*****
End Note 1 - That the June 7, 1643, record is actually earlier than the January 4, 1643/44, entry is also "proven" by the simple fact it appears on page 89 of the old town records as edited by Hoadly, whereas the January 4th entry is set forth on page 122!