JOHN BARNES OF PLYMOUTH PT5: DEATH BY BULL

I think the Plymouth authorities had become resigned to my ancestor John Barnes'
drinking bouts towards the end of his life.Either that, or he became a discreet drunk
and wasn't caught drinking in public. But ultimately, it was a very public and very
foolish display that led to his death at the age of 61 in 1671. A jury of 12 men
were called together to rule on the cause of death. Two of them were also my
ancestors, Samuel Dunham and Sergeant William Harlow:

5March 1671-2
Wee, whose names are vnderwritten, being sumoned together by order
from the Gov to view the corpes of Mr John Barnes, and to giue in a verdict
how wee judge hee came by his death, doe judge, that being before his barne
dore in the street, standing stroakeing or feeling of his bull, the said bull
suddenly turned about vopn him and gaue him a great wound with his horne on
his right thigh, neare eight inches longe, in which his flesh was torne both
broad and deep, as wee judge ; of which wound, together with his wrinch of
his necked or paine thereof, (of which hee complained,)hee imediately
languished ;  after about 32 hours after he died. Vnto the thruth whereof wee
haue submitted our hands.

JAMES SKIFFE,
BENJAMINE HAMOND,
JOHN WOOD, SENIR,
SAMUELL DUNHAM,
JAMES COLE, JUNIR,
NATHANIEL WOOD,
LEIFT MORTON,
SERGT HARLOW,
ALLEXANDER KENEDY,
JOHN WOOD, JUNIR,
GYLES RICKARD, SENIR,
JABEZ  HOWLAND.

Plymouth Court Records p88

Some of his Pilgrim neighbors probably shook their heads and murmured about how
he was warned that someday his drinking would kill him. But despite his excessive
drinking, John Barnes died a wealthy man by the standards of his day, and I'll discuss
that in the next post of this series,

JOHN BARNES OF PLYMOUTH PT4: THE RUNAGATE SERVANT

Being a fairly successful merchant, John Barnes had several indentured servants
in his household and apparently at least one slave. He seems to have not been a
cruel master since there are no records of runaways from his service, but there
are a few cases where his servants requested their contracts be taken over by
another colonist.

Two of the cases involving John's servants interested me. The first involves a
servant named John Wade who had taken a boat trip to Duxbury with a man
named Edward Holman, another merchant of Plymouth Colony who would
have been a business rival of John Barnes.:


2Feb 1657
John Barnes complained against Edw Holman for intertaining John Wade, his
seruant, and for carrying the said Wade to Duxburrow in his boate, without
his masters concent. The Court finding the said Holman, vpon examination of
him, to bee faulty both att this time and att other times in like manor, hee was
fined ten shillings ; and the next time hee, the said Holman, shalbee found faulty
in such like carryages, on due proofe, towards any of the seruants of the said
John Barnes, hee is centanced by the Court to pay vnto him the sume of twenty
shillings.

Att the same Court, the said John Barnes complained against his said seruant,
John Wade, he ran vp and downe like vnto a runagate, and hee could haue noe
comaund ouer him, and therefore desired hee might bee freed from any further
care or inspection ouer him ; on which the Court ordered the said Barnes to keep
his said seruant vntill hee could send word to his father, and take further order
with him about him.  Plymouth Court Records   Vol3 p126


Reading how John Barnes described his "runagate" servant, I wonder just how old
John Wade. Children were indentured sometimes at a young age and his behavior
seems to indicate that John Wade was perhaps just a a normal active boy.



The second case caught my attention because it involves a man from Boston, a
Mr Rocke. Boston was part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony's
rival:

5Jul 1666
In reference vnto Thomas Barnes, servant vnto Mr John Barnes, of Plymouth, vpon
complaint vnto the Court of the nott agreement between the saiid mr and servant,
the case being refered by such as were interested therein, viz, the said Mr Barnes,
and Mr Rocke, of Boston, in the behalfe of the said Thom Barnes, for a full and finall
determination,vnto our honored Gov, he hath ordered, with the consent of the Court
aforsaid, that the said Thomas Barnes shall be surrendered vp vnto the said Mr Rocke,
to be att his dispose, and that he is released from his master, John Barnes, prouided
that the said Mr Rocke pay or cause to bee payd vnto the said John Barnes the sum of
 ^  ^. Vol 4 p133

The amount to be paid by Mr Rocke is missing from the transcription. All there is are those
two "^ ^". The "Gov" referred to was Governor Thomas Prence, with whom John had once
exchanged indentured servants.

Next, the story of the unusual death of John Barnes,.

JOHN BARNES OF PLYMOUTH PT3: BARNES VS. POPE.

Besides being a successful merchant my ancestor John Barnes did a lot of wheeling
and dealing in real estate. His name appears in the Plymouth Court Records more
for land deals than for any other reason. Several times he was appointed by the Court
to settle land disputes between some of the colonists. On one such occasion he was
part of a committee which included a man named Thomas Pope. The irony is that
eventually the Court would be asked to deal in a dispute between Barnes and Pope.

 
Relations between the two men may have soured first because of a fight Pope had
with Gyles Rickard which came to blows and in which Pope hit Rickard's wife. That
incident took place in 1663. About a year later all three men were in Court:    


7Feb 1664-5
In reference vnto diuers complaints amongst some of the naighbours of
Plymouth, in pticulare John Barnes against Thomas Pope, and the said Pope
against Gyles Rickard, concerning bounds of land whereof they complained
each of the other of encroahment and treaspas by cuting of wood and makeing
of hiewaies ouer the said Barnes his land, the Court haue ordered Leiftenant
Morton and Gorge Bonum, with the healp of some other for a third man, to
measure and bound the said lands in controuersy, the ancient bounds being
lost, that soe all controuersyes about the same might sease for the future. 
V4 pp79-80



("Gorge Bonum" was my 8x great grandfather George Bonham.)




Whatever suggestions Morton, Bonham, and the unknown third man may have
made to deal with the situation, it does not appear to have worked. Thomas Pope
had been involved in several confrontations with other colonists over property
boundaries before and in this case he appears to be the instigator, although we
only have the Court Records to go by. Barnes could have very well done something
to provoke Pope that was never recorded anywhere.

Then the following May the pair were once more in Court:

3May 1665
In reference vnto the complaint of John Barnes against Thomas Pope, for
treaspasing vpon his land in carting ouer it, and the complaint of the said
Pope against the said Barnes for violently oposing the children of the said
Pope in the cart way when they were about theire honest labour, and for
beating the horse of the said Pope, and in strikeing of the horse struck his
boy, the Court ordered, that forasmuchas these contrversyes arose rather
out of prejudice then out of any reall cause, that they should addresse
themselues to the healp of naighbours for the settleing of those matters,
and that the said Pope should goe noe more through Barnes his land.
v4 p89

Despite the accusations that Barnes had hit the horse and the Pope boy, no
action was taken against him by the Court. There were no witnesses called
for either side and it's possible the boy had not been hit. What had happened,
though, was that Pope had trespassed again on John Barnes'  land and was
warned by the Court not to do it again.

Whether it was the Court's warning or the intervention of neighbors that was
responsible, John Barnes and Thomas Pope did not appear in Court as adversaries
again. 

JOHN BARNES OF PLYMOUTH PT2: "...ABOMINABLE DRUNKENES"

My ancestor John Barnes must have really perplexed the leaders of Plymouth
Colony. He apparently drank to excess often and in such a way that it was
impossible for the authorities to just ignore it. Yet he was also too important
a member of the Colony to be punished by exile or imprisonment. Finally, in
March of 1657, some limit must have been reached because they tried a
new tactic:

 2March 1657
John Barnes, for his frequent abusing himselfe in drunkeness, after former
punishment and admonition, is fined fiue pounds ; and in case any shall
entertaine him in theire house in a way of drinking, shallbee fined the sume
of twenty shillings ; and if any of the towne of Plymouth shallbee found
drinking in his companie, eury such to pay two shillings & sixpence.
 Plymouth Court Records v3 p128

I think they were trying to use the modern bar tactic of "shutting him off "
but there was a very large hole in it: John Barnes was a merchant, and there
must have been things like wine and rum among the goods he stocked.  He
would also have been traveling to Boston for business where he could find
someone to drink with him. The attempt to curb his drinking problem
failed.

Next the Colony government turned to a different method:

6Oct 1659
Att this court, John Barnes, William Newland, and Henry Howland appeered,
being sumoned, and were convicted by law, and sentanced by the Court to bee
disfranchised of their freedome of this corporation ; the said John Barnes, for
his frequent and abominable drunkenes,  and William Newland and Henry Howland
for theire being abettors and entertainers of Quakers, contrary to the aforesaid
order ; likewise Richare beare of Marshfeild, for being a grossly scandalouse pson,
debaughed having bine formerly convicted of filthy, obseane practises, and for the
same by the Court sentanced ;  as alsoe faling vnder the breach of the aforsaid law,
was summoned by the Court psonally to appeer to receiue the said sentance of being
disfranchised as aforesaid, but he appeered not. Notwithstanding his facts and
course of life being pspecuouse and mannifest, hee was likewise sentanced to bee
disfranchised of his freedome of this corporation. V3 pp176-177

This time, John and the others named were now denied the right to vote in Colony
affairs. Even this did nothing to keep John away from drink, because two years later
a new stricter version of the first Court order was issued:


10Jun 1661
The  ordinary keepers of the towne of Plymouth are heerby prohibited to lett John
Barnes haue any liquors, wine, or strong drinke, att any time, within dores or without,
on the penaltie of being fined fifty shillings if they shallbee found to doe, to bee
to the vse of the collonie. V3 p219

Up until now it looks like there was a pattern: the Colony's leaders would try something
to deal with Barnes' public drunkenness and it would seem to work for about two years. But
either this last time was more successful than the other times, or John finally learned
how to be a discrete drinker. Whatever the case, this time it was four years before the
next appearance in Court for John: 


3Oct 1665
John Barnes, being lately detected of being twise drunke, is fined twenty shillings.

Gyles Rickard, Senr, for suffering John Barnes to bee drunke in his house, is fined
five shillings. V4 p106

This was the next to last mention in the Plymouth Court Records of John Barnes'
drunkenness. The last one came six years later and that was on the occasion of his death.

But John had other affairs that needed to be brought up in Court, and we'll discuss those
next.  

JOHN BARNES OF PLYMOUTH PT1 : "DRANKE SOE MUCH..."

As I wrote in an earlier post, my 9x great grandfather John Barnes was known as
a drunk in Plymouth Colony. It was such a problem that the authorities took
stern measures to deal with the problem, which will be the subject of another
post. But whatever the may have thought about his excessive drinking, John
was also a productive member of Plymouth society. I doubt they would have
been as lenient with someone who was a a layabout alcoholic.

This particular incident caught my attention first because it involves another
of my ancestors,  8x great grandfather Samuel Dunham. The case was originally
about an accusation against a John Smith, Sr. that he had received stolen property
from a servant of John Barnes, but Smith may have tried to get some revenge om
Barnes by bringing up one my ancestor's recent escapades where he arrived at
Samuel Dunham's house after a drinking binge at the house of another neighbor.
It was sort of a "he said that he said" story.

Two things should be explained about the meaning of two phrases in Smith's
accusation. The first is that it was common to say "drink a pipe" rather than
"smoke a pipe" in the 17th century.

The second is that I'm not too sure exactly what John meant about "two rodds"
except that a rod is a unit of measurement, and I think he is referring to the
end result of drinking a lot of beer.

The case is in Volume Three of  Records of the colony of New Plymouth in
New England , page 27.


2May 1653
A neager maide seruant of John Barnes, att this Court accused John
Smith, Senr. of Plym, for receiueing tobacco and other things of her which
were her said masters, att sundry times, in a purloining way. The Court
what could bee said on both sides, and because sufficient testimony could
not be at psent produced for the clearing of the case, it was ordered, that the
said pties should attend the next Court of Assistants for further hearing, and
then produce  what testimony the haue for the clearing thereof.

Upon occation of the difference betwixt the said neager and the said
John Smith, the said Smith accused John Barnes in open Court, and said that
Samuell Dunham said , att the house of Gorge Watson,on Tusday last past,
before the date heerof, that there was soe much liquore drunke att the house
of John Rickard the same day, whereof John Barnes dranke soe much as hee
coming into the house of the said Samuell Dunham, and assaying to drinke a
pipe of tobacco, hee filled his pipe and could not light it, and that he should
in a threatening way  say hee had two rodds in pise for him and Goodwife
Whitney. 

Smith was to be disappointed if he'd thought to get John Barnes in trouble
that day. I suspect the Pilgrim version of eye-rolling took place as they heard
another story of my ancestor having too much to drink because there is no mention
of any punishment being handed down to Barnes at that particular court session.

As to the original case of John Smith and the servant, a final judgement was given
later that year, on 2Aug 1653 before Gov. William Bradford:

Wheras a contravercy depending betwixt  John Smyth, Senr, of Plym, and a neager
maide maide servant of John Barnes, was refered, for want of clearer euidence,
unto this Court bee ended ;  and accordingly whatsoeuer could bee said on either
side was heard ; and with admonission, both pties were cleared. -p39

John Smith Sr was cleared of the charge against him. His attempt to cause trouble
for John Barnes hadn't worked but my ancestor was wearing the patience of the
authorities thin, and as I'll show, there would be consequences.  

MOTHER'S DAY PART2

In honor of Mother's day, here are pictures of some of our Dad's female ancestors.

First, on his mother's side:

Amos H Barker & Betsey J (Moore) Barker

Our 2x great grandmother Betsey Jane Moore was born on 16 Aug 1842 at Waterford,
Oxford, Me. She married Amos Hastings Barker in 1856 and they raised a family of
12 children, 11 of whom survived to adulthood. Betsey died 12Mar 1924 at age 82.

My great grandmother Charlotte Lovenia Barker is the lady on the right.

 Our great grandmother Charlotte Lovenia Barker was youngest of  Amos & Betsey's
12 children. She was born on 3 Aug 1879 in Albany, Oxford, Maine and was known as
":Lottie". She married her first cousin Frank W. Barker on 16Oct 1898 and they had
4 children before Frank died in 1905 from pneumonia caused by "La Grippe" (the flu).
She was married three more times before her death on 3Jan 1944 at Bangor, Maine.   

Cora Berthella (Barker) West & her great granddaughter Mindy Sue West

Our grandmother Cora Berthella (Barker) West was born 27Oct 1899 and was the eldest
child of Frank and Charlotte. She preferred the name Bertha, although it was given as
Cora on her marriage certificate. Bertha married Floyd E.West Sr on 24Mar 1919 and
had 5 children, one of whom was our Dad.

 On his Dad's side of the family:

Arvilla (Ames)West

Our 3x great grandmother Arvilla Ames was born in Livermore, Androscoggin, Maine
on 25Jan 1810, one of 10 children. She married John Cutter West on 23Sep 1827
at Sumner, Maine, and five years later they moved to Letter B Plantation (later renamed
Upton), Oxford, Maine. She had 10 children, 3 of whom died in a diphtheria outbreak
in 1862. She died at age 97 at Hermon, Maine.

Louisa A.(Richardson) West

  Louisa Richardson, our 2x great grandmother was born in Wilton, Maine on
23Jun 1837 at Wilton, Maine.  She was the second wife of Jonathan Phelps West,
whose first wife had died in the 1862 diphtheria outbreak. Louisa and Jonathan
married on 31Jan 1865 and had 4 sons. She died 4Oct 1925 at age 88.

Florilla (Dunham) Ellingwood & Asa F Ellingwood

Our other paternal 2x great grandmother was Florilla Dunham who was born 29Aug 1832
at North Paris, Oxford, Maine. She married Asa F. Ellingwood on 10Aug 1850 at Woodstock,
Oxford, Maine and they had 11 children.(She was one of 11 children herself.) She died in
Paris, Oxford, Maine on 21Feb 1917.

Clara (Ellingwood) West

                                                                                                  

Finally, our great grandmother  Clara Ellingwood was the 8th child and youngest
daughter of Florilla and Asa. She was born 6Mar 1865 in Dummer, Coos, NH.
Her first marriage with Charles Tidswell ended in divorce and she married  our
great grandfather Philip J West on 25May 1894 at Shelburne, Coos, NH. She had
three children by her first marriage and two by her second, including our grandfather
Floyd E West, Sr. Sadly, Clara died young after an illness in Augusta, Maine on 10Apr
1901. She was only 36 years old.

And those are the pictures we have of the mothers in our family.

Happy Mother's Day! 

MOTHER'S DAY PT1

For Mother's Day this year I thought I'd share some pictures of the mothers from
both sides of our family. For our Mom's side we don't have very many since her grandparents
immigrated here from Ireland and Germany in the 19th century.

 

John McFarland & Annie (Kelley) McFarland

First there's Anna Kelley, born 1Oct 1858 in Kiltrustan, Roscommon, Ireland. She married
my great grandfather in Edinburgh Scotland on 16May1879 and shortly after they came
to America and settled in Boston. She had 17 children, 10 of whom survived to adulthood.
Anna died 15Feb 1945 at Boston,Ma, at age 86.

Pauline (Offinger) White

Our other maternal great grandmother was Pauline Offinger, born 17Dec 1873
in Cambridge, Massachusetts to German immigrant parents. She married Edward J.
White on 27Nov 1895 in Boston, Ma. and had 9 children.          

Agnes (McFarland) White

Our grandmother Agnes (McFarland) White was born 7Oct 1898 in Boston, Ma, the
14th of John & Annie's 17 children. She was known as "Aggie" in the family. She married
Edward F.White, Sr. and had two children,  our Uncle Ed  and our Mom Anne Marie. She
died 12Feb 1957 in Malden Ma.

Anne M. (White) West

Finally, our Mom, Anne M. (White) West. She was born 7Jul 1927 at Boston, Ma and
married our Dad on 29Jun 1947, also at Boston. To her McFarland cousins she was
known as "Red White".She died on 28Jul 1999 at Weymouth, Ma and she is missed
my brother, my sister, myself and the rest of the family.

STEPHEN HOPKINS OF THE MAYFLOWER PT2

Among the entries in the Plymouth Court Records Volume 1 1633-1640, there is
this entry for a trial on Sept.3 1638 that would have consequences for my ancestor
Stephen Hopkins:

Arthur Peach, Thomas Jackson, Richard  Stinnings, and Daniell Crosse were indicted
for murther & robbing  by the heigh way.  They killed and robd one Penowanyanquis,
an Indian, at Misquamsqueece, & took from him fiue fadome of wampeux, and three
coates of wollen cloth.
The jurys names that went vpon them were these:-
Sworne                                         Sworne
Willam Hatch,                          John Paybody,
John Winslowe,                      Richard Sillis,
Willm Pontus,                          Humfrey Turner,
Edward Foster,                        Samuell Hinckley,
Richard Derbye,                      Giles Rickett,
John Holmes,                           Gabriell Fallowell,

They found the said Arthur Peach,  Thomas Jackson, and Richard Stinnings
guilty of the said felonius murthering & robbing of the said Penowanyauquis,
but say that they, nor any of them, had any lands or tennements, goods, or cattles,
at the tyme of the said felonie comitted that they know of ; and so say they all.
Daniell Crosse made an escape, & so had not his tryall ; but Peach, Jackson, &
Stinnings  had sentence of death pnounced ; vizt, to be taken from the place from
whence they came, and thence to the place of execucon, and there to be hanged
by the neck vntill their bodyes were dead, wch was executed vpon them accordingly.
pp96-97 

Now Stephen had no part in that trial, either as a witness or a juror. The consequences
didn't become apparent for a few months, but eventually they couldn't be ignored
and they led to a few tense days in court the following February. The year is still recorded
as 1638 because under the old English calendar March 25th, the Feast of the Annunciation
was the first day of the new year. That was changed to January 1st in 1752 when the
Gregorian Calendar was adopted by England and all its territories:

4Feb 1638
Concerning Mr. Stephen Hopkins and Dorothy Temple, his servant, the Court doth
oder, wth one consent, that in regard by her couenant of indenture shee hath yet
aboue two years to serue him, that the said Mr Hopkins shall keep her and her child,
or puide shee may be kept wth food and rayment during the said terme; and if he
refuse so to doe, that then the collony ;puide for her, & Mr Hopkins to pay it. p111 

Mr Steephen Hopkins is committed to ward for his contempt to the Court, and shall
so remayne comitted vntill hee shall either receiue his servant Dorothy Temple, or
els puide for her elsewhere at his own charge during the terme she hath yet to serue
him. p112

The connection with the murder trial was that one of the defendants, Arthur Peach,
was  the father of Dorothy's child. I don't know the exact reason  for Stephen's
refusal to fulfill his responsibilities under the terms of Dorthy's indenture contract
with him. Perhaps he may have know the victim since he had dealings with the
Indians on the colony's behalf.  It could also be he felt that Dorothy's association
with a murderer reflected badly upon him as her master. Whatever the reason,
the issue was resolved four days later. The Court Record doesn't say if Stephen
spent that whole time in the jail:   
  
8Feb 1638
The 8th of Februar., 1638.  Memorand : That whereas Dorothy Temple, a mayde servant
dwelling wth Mr Steephen Hopkins, was begotten wth child in his service by Arthur
Peach, who was executed for murther and robbery by the heigh way before the said
child was borne, the said Steephen Hopkins hath concluded and agreed wth Mr John
Holmes, of Plymouth, for three pounds sterl., and other consideracons to him in
hand  payd, to discharge the said Steephen Hopkins and the colony of the said
Dorothy Temple and her child foreuer ; and the said Dorothy is to serue all the residue
of her tyme wth the said John Holmes, according to her indenture.p113

So Stephen paid John Holmes 3 pounds and some other items to take over  Dorothy's
contract.  While that ended his legal problems, it wasn't quite over for poor Dorothy.
Premarital sex, or fornication as the Pilgrims called it, was sternly dealt with in
Plymouth Colony. By the following June her baby was delivered and Dorothy was back
in court:
     
4June 1639
Dorothy Temple, for vncleanes and bringing forth a male bastard, is censured to be
whipt twice ; but shee faynting in the execucon of the first, thother was not executed.
p127

I haven't found any mention yet of the fate of Dorothy and her infant son. I hope she
found a husband to take care of them that they lived out the rest of their lives
uneventfully.

STEPHEN HOPKINS OF THE MAYFLOWER PT1

I've always had a soft spot for my Mayflower ancestor Stephen Hopkins. He was
the only man known to have been both at the Jamestown Colony in Virginia
and at Plymouth Colony. He was one of the "Strangers", a Mayflower passenger
who was not part of the Pilgrim congregation but a representative of the men
in London who had invested in the new colony.  His experience at Jamestown
with the Indians was supposedly the reason that the Pilgrim leaders had Samoset
sleep in the Hopkins house when the Indian leader visited, but I suspect that
as a Stranger he was viewed as expendable.

Despite his status as an outsider, Stephen did quite well in the settlement and
was given a position of authority as an Assistant to the Governor.  He was also
given a license to serve liquor, and that, along with perhaps a bit of temper,
led to some difficulties and appearances in the General Court. They were
recorded  in the Plymouth Court Records Volume 1 1633-1640:   

7th Jun 1636
"At the same Court an accon of battery was tried between John Tisdale,
yeoman, plaintiffe, & Stephen Hopkins, Assistant to the governmt, deft,
wherein the deft, Stephen Hopkins, was cast in five pownds starling to our
sov. lord the King, whose peace he had broken, wch he ought after a speciall
manner to have kept, and also forty shillings to the plaintiffe. both wch he
was adjudged to pay." p42


2Oct 1637
"Presentments by the Grand Inquest
Mr Stephen Hopkins, first presentment, (for suffering men to drink in his
house upon the Lords day, before the meeting be ended, and upon the
Lords day,  both before & after the meetings, servants & others to drink more
then for ordinary refreshing) is respited untill the next Court, that the testimony
of John Barnes be had therein."

"Mr Stephen Hopkins, psented for suffering servants  and others to sit
drinkeing in his house, (contrary to the orders of this Court,) and to play at
shovell board, & such like misdemeanors, is therefore fined fourty shillings.
p68"

 5Jun 1638
"Mr   Stepheen Hopkins is presented for selling beer for 2 pence the quart, not
worth one pence a quart. Witness Kenelme Winslow." p87

4Sep 1638
"Mr Steephen Hopkins, upon two psentmnts against him the last Court, and three
psentmnts this Court, for selling wine, beere, strong waters, and nutmeggs at
excessive rates, is fynd 5li.". p97

Hopkins seems to have settled down after that last fine, because I didn't find
any incident involving alcohol after 1638. But there is one other incident
involving a servant, which I'll discuss in the next post.