More statements about the charges against Thomas Tuxbury, followed by his rebuttal. Some of the men who vouched for his character are my ancestors: William Gerrish, Stephen Greenleaf, and Joseph Bailey.
This is a long post, so I'll save my observations for the last post in the series.
William Saman, aged about thirty-eight years, deposed that about three years ago, Tuksbery being at Boston, he saw several letters that passed between him and the widow Bartlett, she being at Newbury. Deponent had seen them at Newbery kissing each other, etc. Sworn, Sept. 19, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Mrs. Susana Goodin deposed that she rode to Newbery with the widow Bartlet when the rumor was that they were to marry and she told her that three of Tuksbery's children were to come over, one of whom was placed out and one his father was to keep. She further said that when her husband Bartlet was alive she thought it was impossible for her to have loved any other as she did him, but that she now loved this man better than she loved him.
Sworn, Sept. 18, 1674, before Rob. Pike,* commissioner. Wm. Gerrish,* Steven Grenlefe,* Richard Dole,* John Knight, sr.,* Thomas Hale, jr.,* Daniell Peirce,* Anthony Somerby,* Caleb Moody,* Joseph Bayley* and John Webster* certified, Sept. 14, 1674, that Thomas Tewxsbury had lived civilly and like a Christian. Nathanell Clarke* testified that the testimony against this man was of little consequence. "I have known the man euer sins he came to our town and neuer did know any euell of him."
Thomas Tewxbery's* petition: "lett me beseech your worshipe to consider this my poore condition which I am at this time forsed to lay open before your worshipe to my greife thus it was that I was forsed to fly my contry & to leave my family & kindred for surtyship & when it was soe with me I Could not be satisfied noe wheare in that land but I must com to this country in soe meane estate that I was forsd to bind my selfe for my pasage not longe after by the helpe of my brother got my selfe cleare & lived with him but very much troubled in the mean time my brothers neihbor died & the executor wild me to rent his tenament which after sum consideration I tooke it wiled by the advise of sum frends to send to my family which I have don to my best abelity whearupon I was willing to get if posible sum thing about me expecting every year their coming over & had noe encorigment from them that I might goe to them the times now being amended I have intended all this year to goe for them but god has ben pleasd to viset me with a great lamnes whearby I have ben much disinabled & now I be sech your worshipe consider & see how this people seek to undoe me in state & good name by raising of storys & scandalls about many things that have ben past to or three yeare since not that I have done them any wrong but in suspition that I have caused diferences to arise between their son and his wife because I went to her mother to have my hand cured thay then livinge in house whith her mother the partys them selvs noe ways acusing me
Charls Anes and Sarah Anes deposed that they had known Thomas Tewxbery ever since he came into the country, living close by him and had been in his company early and late, but never saw any uncivil carriage. They considered that he lived in the fear of God and carried himself well all the time he lived in the house with the widow Bartlet.
Johne Daves deposed that "I lived in one end of the house with Thomas Tewxbery most parte of the time he lived in house with the widow," etc.
John Stevens and Mary Stevens deposed that they were his next neighbors and he had milk of them and they never saw any uncivil carriages, but oftentimes gave them good instruction in the way of God to their comfort. John Bayley and his wife testified that when he was at their house, he carried himself well, etc
pp403-404
Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 5
Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow
Essex Institute, 1916 - Essex County (Mass.)
Showing posts with label Hoyt John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hoyt John. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2015
Saturday, July 18, 2015
THE CASE AGAINST THOMAS TUXBURY PT3: "...SHE MUST HAVE ONE IN EVERY PORT...":
Continuing on with the testimony against Thomas Tuxbury, we get more "he said, she said",
including something Thomas said that may have led to the suspicions of bigamy, as well
as his opinion of Mary Martin's morals, which sound like sour grapes from a rejected suitor:
Richard Marten, aged about twenty-seven years, deposed that this summer when Thomas Tuksbury had a lame hand at deponent's father Hoyt's, he told deponent that if he were in his place, "the case being as it is with my wif he woold go away from her & Leave her and go into another Country & mary another wif To which I sayd if I shoold so do my concienc woold tell me yt I had a wif & it may be a child in another plac: his answer was ther wear good men in former tune yt had mor wives then on as namly daved which was a man after gods owne hart." Sworn, Sept. 16, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
George Martinn deposed that in a short time after his son Richard was married to Sergt. Jeret Hoyt's daughter, deponent's brother Hoyt told him that Tukesbery said he was sorry that his daughter was married no better, for her husband was but a poor man and had suffered disgrace at Hampton, but Amesbery men would live well as long as they had any land and he told him that although he had suffered disgrace at Hampton, it was not for running away from his wife. Also that Tukesbery said to Mrs. Hoyt that he had murderous thoughts to kill himself because her daughter was married. Also that Tukesbery asked William Samon, the ferryman, to bring over Richard Martinn's wife, and he would pay him for it.
Mary, wife of Left. Chalic and Mary, wife of Henry Blazdal, deposed that last spring Goody Hoyt told Tuksbery at Blazdel's house that her daughter was to be married to Richard Martin and he said that she would never love any man more than a fortnight and he wished he had never seen her face. He also said that when she lived on Newbery side, she kept such company in the night and there was such swearing and tearing that it made his hair stand on end and upon being asked by Goodwife Chalic how he could bear it, he answered that he had been fain to rise in the night and bid them be gone and that her sister Naomy was as bad as she. Also that said widow Bartlet said that she must have one at every port, and that she wooed Richard and not he her. Sworn, Sept. 10, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
-p402
Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 5Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow
Essex Institute, 1916 - Essex County (Mass.)
To be continued...
including something Thomas said that may have led to the suspicions of bigamy, as well
as his opinion of Mary Martin's morals, which sound like sour grapes from a rejected suitor:
Richard Marten, aged about twenty-seven years, deposed that this summer when Thomas Tuksbury had a lame hand at deponent's father Hoyt's, he told deponent that if he were in his place, "the case being as it is with my wif he woold go away from her & Leave her and go into another Country & mary another wif To which I sayd if I shoold so do my concienc woold tell me yt I had a wif & it may be a child in another plac: his answer was ther wear good men in former tune yt had mor wives then on as namly daved which was a man after gods owne hart." Sworn, Sept. 16, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
George Martinn deposed that in a short time after his son Richard was married to Sergt. Jeret Hoyt's daughter, deponent's brother Hoyt told him that Tukesbery said he was sorry that his daughter was married no better, for her husband was but a poor man and had suffered disgrace at Hampton, but Amesbery men would live well as long as they had any land and he told him that although he had suffered disgrace at Hampton, it was not for running away from his wife. Also that Tukesbery said to Mrs. Hoyt that he had murderous thoughts to kill himself because her daughter was married. Also that Tukesbery asked William Samon, the ferryman, to bring over Richard Martinn's wife, and he would pay him for it.
Mary, wife of Left. Chalic and Mary, wife of Henry Blazdal, deposed that last spring Goody Hoyt told Tuksbery at Blazdel's house that her daughter was to be married to Richard Martin and he said that she would never love any man more than a fortnight and he wished he had never seen her face. He also said that when she lived on Newbery side, she kept such company in the night and there was such swearing and tearing that it made his hair stand on end and upon being asked by Goodwife Chalic how he could bear it, he answered that he had been fain to rise in the night and bid them be gone and that her sister Naomy was as bad as she. Also that said widow Bartlet said that she must have one at every port, and that she wooed Richard and not he her. Sworn, Sept. 10, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
-p402
Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 5Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow
Essex Institute, 1916 - Essex County (Mass.)
To be continued...
Friday, July 17, 2015
THE CASE AGAINST THOMAS TUXBURY PT2: "...TO STOP THE MOUTHS OF PEOPLE..."
The testimony in the case of Thomas Tuxbury would make a great PBS Masterpiece Theater drama. There's Thomas' unrequited(maybe)love for a married woman, his involvement with a widow, the pesky matter of a wife and children who may or may not exist back in Merry Olde England, and pithy language used as witnesses recount what was said at various times
Besides Thomas' Hoyt relatives, there are other of my Essex County ancestors appearing here and there in the testimony, like the Baileys and Lt. Phillip Challis.
Here's the first part of the testimony:
Summons, dated Sept. 13, 1674, to Richard Marten and Mary his wife, to answer complaints against the said Mary for suspicious carriages with Thomas Tuexbery, tending to evil consequences if not prevented, at the house of Robt. Pike, signed by Robt. Pike*, for the court.
Bond for appearance at Major Denison's court at Ipswich of Thomas Tuexbury, with John Bayly and Joseph Bayly, his son, as sureties, upon complaint of Georg Marten and John Jimson.
George Martinn's* and John Jimson's petition, dated Sept. 10, 1674, to the honored Major Pike to stop said Tuexbury's disturbances.
Left. Philip Chalic and Jaret Hadn, aged sixty-nine years, deposed that they were selectmen with Sergt. Hoyt, and understanding that Thomas Tuksbery was resident in the town at Sergt. Hoyt's house, they forewarned him that he must give a bond not to charge the town. They also understood that said Thomas had a wife and children in England, but Hoyt said he could stay because there was a letter signifying that he was free and could settle as other single men, which letter the widow Bartlett pulled out of her bosom, the letter pretending to be from a minister of his town in England. Seeing two hands on it, deponents conceived it to be some counterfeit thing to delude the widow and so they told her father, etc. Sworn, Sept. 16, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Mary Marten and Naomy Hoyt deposed. Sworn, 16 : 7 : 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Thomas Fowler, aged about thirty-nine years, deposed that sometime before he loaned his horse to the widow Bartlet to ride to Boston to Thomas Tuksbery, he was at the said widow's house at Newbery and heard them promise to marry one another. Sworn, Sept. 2, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Thomas Wells, aged twenty-seven years, deposed that the letter contained news of the death of said Tuxeberry's wife and that upon examination he found that the letter was written in one hand and the superscription in another, that the name subscribed was Charls Chere, as well as he could remember, who said he hoped said Tuxeberry would not forget to show a fatherly affection for his children. Further that the letter was directed by superscription to Henry Tuxeberry in New England, dwelling near Newberey and by inscription to Thomas Tuxeberry, etc. Sworn, Sept. 21, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Susanna Marten deposed that hearing a rumor and being desired by several of her neighbors to go to her brother Hoyt's house concerning one Thomas Tukesberry whom they thought would be a trouble to her son Richard in making a disturbance between him and his wife, she went and spoke to her sister Hoyt. She asked her to forbear his coming to her house if it were but to stop the mouths of people, for their mouths were open, but her sister Hoyt replied "let them shut them againe, for here he should come in spite of your teeth or any bodys els, can we not entertaine a godly man for a stranger ile tumble your son out a doors I sayd againe if you doo hee have a fathers house to come too my cousin naomy Hoyt then spake thes words and sayd sister if I ware as you if unckell tukesbery migght not come to me I would goe to him for you cannot goe to better man then unckell tukesberry is in my mind." Sworn, Sept. 16, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
pp400-402
Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 5Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow
Essex Institute, 1916 - Essex County (Mass.)
I got a kick out of the Widow Bartlett's keeping ther letter in question close at hand "in her bosom",
and the response of the Hoyt women to Susanna Martin's visit.
To be continued
Besides Thomas' Hoyt relatives, there are other of my Essex County ancestors appearing here and there in the testimony, like the Baileys and Lt. Phillip Challis.
Here's the first part of the testimony:
Summons, dated Sept. 13, 1674, to Richard Marten and Mary his wife, to answer complaints against the said Mary for suspicious carriages with Thomas Tuexbery, tending to evil consequences if not prevented, at the house of Robt. Pike, signed by Robt. Pike*, for the court.
Bond for appearance at Major Denison's court at Ipswich of Thomas Tuexbury, with John Bayly and Joseph Bayly, his son, as sureties, upon complaint of Georg Marten and John Jimson.
George Martinn's* and John Jimson's petition, dated Sept. 10, 1674, to the honored Major Pike to stop said Tuexbury's disturbances.
Left. Philip Chalic and Jaret Hadn, aged sixty-nine years, deposed that they were selectmen with Sergt. Hoyt, and understanding that Thomas Tuksbery was resident in the town at Sergt. Hoyt's house, they forewarned him that he must give a bond not to charge the town. They also understood that said Thomas had a wife and children in England, but Hoyt said he could stay because there was a letter signifying that he was free and could settle as other single men, which letter the widow Bartlett pulled out of her bosom, the letter pretending to be from a minister of his town in England. Seeing two hands on it, deponents conceived it to be some counterfeit thing to delude the widow and so they told her father, etc. Sworn, Sept. 16, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Mary Marten and Naomy Hoyt deposed. Sworn, 16 : 7 : 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Thomas Fowler, aged about thirty-nine years, deposed that sometime before he loaned his horse to the widow Bartlet to ride to Boston to Thomas Tuksbery, he was at the said widow's house at Newbery and heard them promise to marry one another. Sworn, Sept. 2, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Thomas Wells, aged twenty-seven years, deposed that the letter contained news of the death of said Tuxeberry's wife and that upon examination he found that the letter was written in one hand and the superscription in another, that the name subscribed was Charls Chere, as well as he could remember, who said he hoped said Tuxeberry would not forget to show a fatherly affection for his children. Further that the letter was directed by superscription to Henry Tuxeberry in New England, dwelling near Newberey and by inscription to Thomas Tuxeberry, etc. Sworn, Sept. 21, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
Susanna Marten deposed that hearing a rumor and being desired by several of her neighbors to go to her brother Hoyt's house concerning one Thomas Tukesberry whom they thought would be a trouble to her son Richard in making a disturbance between him and his wife, she went and spoke to her sister Hoyt. She asked her to forbear his coming to her house if it were but to stop the mouths of people, for their mouths were open, but her sister Hoyt replied "let them shut them againe, for here he should come in spite of your teeth or any bodys els, can we not entertaine a godly man for a stranger ile tumble your son out a doors I sayd againe if you doo hee have a fathers house to come too my cousin naomy Hoyt then spake thes words and sayd sister if I ware as you if unckell tukesbery migght not come to me I would goe to him for you cannot goe to better man then unckell tukesberry is in my mind." Sworn, Sept. 16, 1674, before Robt. Pike,* commissioner.
pp400-402
Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 5Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow
Essex Institute, 1916 - Essex County (Mass.)
I got a kick out of the Widow Bartlett's keeping ther letter in question close at hand "in her bosom",
and the response of the Hoyt women to Susanna Martin's visit.
To be continued
Thursday, July 16, 2015
THE CASE AGAINST THOMAS TUXBURY PT1: "FOWER PTICLERS'
I'm in a number of New England genealogy groups on FB. A member in one of them posted a link to a Find A Grave memorial of a common ancestor, John Hoyt, and asked a question about his wife, Frances Tuxbury. This led me to do a Google search....which led to a link to a book collection of Essex County Court Files on Googlebooks....which led to a case that starts out with a letter with the most tortured phrasing in the opening.
John Hoyt and Frances (Tuxbury) Holt are my 9x great grandparents, but the court case I discovered was about a Thomas Tuxbury, who I believe to be the brother of Frances. By the way, the name is spelled in various ways, the most common being Tewksbury.
Let's start with that convoluted letter, written to the Court by Constable Robert Pike in September
1674:
"Much Honrd Salisbury ___pt. ye 22, 1674
"Sr These Lins ar (being sencibl som blame Justly be charged for psuming to give you the trouble of this busnes) to excus it: the cheef cause was that his casse referring to the breach of Law in living from his wif: was with you alredy: & he dwell in your county & himself & neibours much desiring he might therfor com befor yor self rather then ye court: & on the other sid considering if you saw not Reson to Isu it you coold soon bind him either to your court or ours I hoped it might be excusible
"I haue hear inclosed his bond of appearanc Georg Marten & J Jemsons complaint & their declarasion which consists of Fower pticlers — The first the sd Tusbury do not seem to owne before me: the 2d he owned and sayd it was to see his Low condision by it as an adision to all his other aflictions: the 3d he owned & sayd it was accasioned by words of Richard martns spoke first to yt purpos The 4th he also owned but sayd it was to com about som lawfull bisnes then in hand about the land yt sd Thomas Tuksbury all These wear owned by him before me
"I haue sent all the evidences that I haue taken in the Case which will expect pay som whear and also the constibl for serving them & the complainer which I pray remember to order if the case be ended with you: not farther troubling you at psent take Leave to subscribe my self
"Yor worships most humb servant
"Robt Pike.
-p400 Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 5Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow Essex Institute, 1916
- Essex County (Mass.)
Robert Pike sent witness statements along with this letter, and they help clear up what Pike
was dancing around. What Thomas Tuxbury was being accused of was adultery and attempted
bigamy, and there's a lady's bosom and unrequited love mixed up in it as well.Also involved
are some of my other ancestors.
And you'll have to wait for the next part for the details of the "Fower pticlers"
To be continued.
John Hoyt and Frances (Tuxbury) Holt are my 9x great grandparents, but the court case I discovered was about a Thomas Tuxbury, who I believe to be the brother of Frances. By the way, the name is spelled in various ways, the most common being Tewksbury.
Let's start with that convoluted letter, written to the Court by Constable Robert Pike in September
1674:
"Much Honrd Salisbury ___pt. ye 22, 1674
"Sr These Lins ar (being sencibl som blame Justly be charged for psuming to give you the trouble of this busnes) to excus it: the cheef cause was that his casse referring to the breach of Law in living from his wif: was with you alredy: & he dwell in your county & himself & neibours much desiring he might therfor com befor yor self rather then ye court: & on the other sid considering if you saw not Reson to Isu it you coold soon bind him either to your court or ours I hoped it might be excusible
"I haue hear inclosed his bond of appearanc Georg Marten & J Jemsons complaint & their declarasion which consists of Fower pticlers — The first the sd Tusbury do not seem to owne before me: the 2d he owned and sayd it was to see his Low condision by it as an adision to all his other aflictions: the 3d he owned & sayd it was accasioned by words of Richard martns spoke first to yt purpos The 4th he also owned but sayd it was to com about som lawfull bisnes then in hand about the land yt sd Thomas Tuksbury all These wear owned by him before me
"I haue sent all the evidences that I haue taken in the Case which will expect pay som whear and also the constibl for serving them & the complainer which I pray remember to order if the case be ended with you: not farther troubling you at psent take Leave to subscribe my self
"Yor worships most humb servant
"Robt Pike.
-p400 Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts, Volume 5Massachusetts. County Court (Essex County), George Francis Dow Essex Institute, 1916
- Essex County (Mass.)
Robert Pike sent witness statements along with this letter, and they help clear up what Pike
was dancing around. What Thomas Tuxbury was being accused of was adultery and attempted
bigamy, and there's a lady's bosom and unrequited love mixed up in it as well.Also involved
are some of my other ancestors.
And you'll have to wait for the next part for the details of the "Fower pticlers"
To be continued.
Friday, September 26, 2014
52 ANCESTORS IN 52 WEEKS#38: JOHN HOYT PT2
A few more things from David Webster Hoyt's family genealogy:
On the records of the Hampton Court, 3, 8m, 1650, we find: "John Hoyt tooke
the oath of fidelitie, att this prsent Court." He was one of the "Grand Jurie" in
1652, and several times afterwards served in the same capacity, and also as
one of the "Jurie of Tryalls." A "Jn° Hoyt of Salisbury tooke ye fFreemans oath"
before the Salisbury Court, 2m, 1663, but it was probably (3) John2, especially
as there was a John Hoyt on the grand jury at the same court.
John1 Hoyt was a Sergeant of the Salisbury Military Company, and was frequently
called "Sargent Hoyt." From the Massachusetts Records, we learn that in May,
1658, the General Court answered the "request of Sarjant Hoyte & Sarjt Stephens,
that Phillip Challice might be confirmed left. to ye ffoote company in Salisbury,"
by referring "the determination thereof to ye next County Court of that county."
"Sargent Jn° Hoyt" was freed by the Salisbury Court, 9, 2m 1667, "from all traynings, allowing to y° Millitary company of Salisbury: tenn groats p annii." "John Hoyt
senr" was also one of "the Commissioned and other officers of the Militia in the
County of Norfolk," who signed a petition to the General Court in May, 1671,
complaining of Capt. Pike's appointment over them the year previous as Sergeant
Major.
He had two wives, both named Frances. He probably married his first wife about
1635 (2), though we have found no record of it. She died Feb. 23,1642-3, and he
married his second wife in 1643 or '44 (7). His second wife survived him, and
was living in 1697. The town records of Amesbury state that "Sargent Jn° Hoyt
sen. died on ye 28th day & was buried on ye 29 day of Feb. An. Dom. 1687-88."
The county records at Salem state that he died on the 29th of February, but the town records are probably correct. p19
Hoyt family: A genealogical history of John Hoyt of Salisbury, and David Hoyt of Deerfield, (Massachusetts,) and their descendants: with some account of the earlier Connecticut Hoyts, and an appendix, containing the family record of William Barnes of Salisbury, a list of the first settlers of Salisbury and Amesbury, & c (Google eBook) by David Webster Hoyt (C. Benjamin Richardson, Boston, Ma. 1857)
I've not been able to find any record of John Hoyt's marriage to the second Frances in either the Salisbury or Amesbury vital records. David Webster Hoyt lists the Hoyt children:
Children of (1) John1 Hoyt and Frances, his first wife.
(2) I. Frances,2 b.___
;m. 1st., John Colby, Jan. 14, 1655-6, and 2d, John Barnard, Dec. 27, 1676. She d. in Amesbury, Jan. 2, 1720-1, probably aged about 85 years.
(3) II. John,2 b. about 1638; m. Mary Barnes, dau. Wm. and Rachel Barnes, June
23, 1659 ...
(4) III. Thomas,2 br Jan. 1, 1640-1; m. Mary Brown, dau. of William and Elisabeth Brown of Salisbury
(5) IV. Gregorie,2 b. Jan. 1, 1640-1; d. Jan. 1, 1641-2.
(6) V. Elisabeth, 2 b. Feb. 23,1642-3.
Children of (1) John1 Hoyt and Frances, his second wife.
(7) VI. Sarah 2 b. Jan. 16, 1644-5; d. Feb. 26, 1644-5.
(8) VII. Mary, 2 b. Feb. 20, 1645-6; probably m. Christopher Bartlet,
of Newbury, Dec. 19 [or 17 ?], 1663.
(9) VIII. Joseph, 2 b. May 13, 1648; d. April 19, 1648, according to the records.
Probably a mistake in the month of one of the dates.
(10) IX. Joseph,2 b. Nov. 27, 1649; d. Jan. 24, 1649-50.
(11) X. Marah,2 b. Nov. 24, 1653; d. Dec. 1, 1653.
(12) XI. Naomi,2 b. Jan. 23, 1654-5; probably m. John Lovejoy,
Andover, March 23, 1677-8.
(13) XII. Dorothie,2 b. April 13, 1656
(14) XIII. Mehetabel 2 b. Oct. 25, 1664.
-pp21-25
I've written previously about Dorothy Hoyt being brought to Court for dressing in
mens clothes. (Scandalous!!)
To be continued...
On the records of the Hampton Court, 3, 8m, 1650, we find: "John Hoyt tooke
the oath of fidelitie, att this prsent Court." He was one of the "Grand Jurie" in
1652, and several times afterwards served in the same capacity, and also as
one of the "Jurie of Tryalls." A "Jn° Hoyt of Salisbury tooke ye fFreemans oath"
before the Salisbury Court, 2m, 1663, but it was probably (3) John2, especially
as there was a John Hoyt on the grand jury at the same court.
John1 Hoyt was a Sergeant of the Salisbury Military Company, and was frequently
called "Sargent Hoyt." From the Massachusetts Records, we learn that in May,
1658, the General Court answered the "request of Sarjant Hoyte & Sarjt Stephens,
that Phillip Challice might be confirmed left. to ye ffoote company in Salisbury,"
by referring "the determination thereof to ye next County Court of that county."
"Sargent Jn° Hoyt" was freed by the Salisbury Court, 9, 2m 1667, "from all traynings, allowing to y° Millitary company of Salisbury: tenn groats p annii." "John Hoyt
senr" was also one of "the Commissioned and other officers of the Militia in the
County of Norfolk," who signed a petition to the General Court in May, 1671,
complaining of Capt. Pike's appointment over them the year previous as Sergeant
Major.
He had two wives, both named Frances. He probably married his first wife about
1635 (2), though we have found no record of it. She died Feb. 23,1642-3, and he
married his second wife in 1643 or '44 (7). His second wife survived him, and
was living in 1697. The town records of Amesbury state that "Sargent Jn° Hoyt
sen. died on ye 28th day & was buried on ye 29 day of Feb. An. Dom. 1687-88."
The county records at Salem state that he died on the 29th of February, but the town records are probably correct. p19
Hoyt family: A genealogical history of John Hoyt of Salisbury, and David Hoyt of Deerfield, (Massachusetts,) and their descendants: with some account of the earlier Connecticut Hoyts, and an appendix, containing the family record of William Barnes of Salisbury, a list of the first settlers of Salisbury and Amesbury, & c (Google eBook) by David Webster Hoyt (C. Benjamin Richardson, Boston, Ma. 1857)
I've not been able to find any record of John Hoyt's marriage to the second Frances in either the Salisbury or Amesbury vital records. David Webster Hoyt lists the Hoyt children:
Children of (1) John1 Hoyt and Frances, his first wife.
(2) I. Frances,2 b.___
;m. 1st., John Colby, Jan. 14, 1655-6, and 2d, John Barnard, Dec. 27, 1676. She d. in Amesbury, Jan. 2, 1720-1, probably aged about 85 years.
(3) II. John,2 b. about 1638; m. Mary Barnes, dau. Wm. and Rachel Barnes, June
23, 1659 ...
(4) III. Thomas,2 br Jan. 1, 1640-1; m. Mary Brown, dau. of William and Elisabeth Brown of Salisbury
(5) IV. Gregorie,2 b. Jan. 1, 1640-1; d. Jan. 1, 1641-2.
(6) V. Elisabeth, 2 b. Feb. 23,1642-3.
Children of (1) John1 Hoyt and Frances, his second wife.
(7) VI. Sarah 2 b. Jan. 16, 1644-5; d. Feb. 26, 1644-5.
(8) VII. Mary, 2 b. Feb. 20, 1645-6; probably m. Christopher Bartlet,
of Newbury, Dec. 19 [or 17 ?], 1663.
(9) VIII. Joseph, 2 b. May 13, 1648; d. April 19, 1648, according to the records.
Probably a mistake in the month of one of the dates.
(10) IX. Joseph,2 b. Nov. 27, 1649; d. Jan. 24, 1649-50.
(11) X. Marah,2 b. Nov. 24, 1653; d. Dec. 1, 1653.
(12) XI. Naomi,2 b. Jan. 23, 1654-5; probably m. John Lovejoy,
Andover, March 23, 1677-8.
(13) XII. Dorothie,2 b. April 13, 1656
(14) XIII. Mehetabel 2 b. Oct. 25, 1664.
-pp21-25
I've written previously about Dorothy Hoyt being brought to Court for dressing in
mens clothes. (Scandalous!!)
To be continued...
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
52 ANCESTORS IN 52 WEEKS#38: JOHN HOYT
Fellow geneablogger Amy Johnson Crow of No Story Too Small has issued the
52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks Challenge. Basically, we have to post something every
week on a different ancestor, whether a story, picture, or research problem. For
this prompt I've tried to concentrate on ancestors I haven't researched as much
as I have others in my family. This week's subject is John Hoyt, my 9x great
grandfather. I've actually posted a little in the past about John but since I will be
posting about how the Barnes, Davis' and Hoyts became entwined I thought it
a good idea to start with John.
Once again, I've found a Hoyt family genealogy online at GoogleBooks and it
had quite a bit of information on John Hoyt's role as an original settler of the
town of Salisbury, Ma. which will take a few posts to go over:
First Generation.
(1) JOHN1 HOYT.
The earliest information concerning (1) John' Hoyt, which has yet been obtained, is
that he was one of the original settlers of Salisbury, Mass. His age at that time can
not be accurately determined, but, from the fact that he had at least two children born previous to 1639, it seems probable that he was born about 1610-15. He was chosen selectman, March, 1681-2, and moderator of town-meeting, April, 1687 (the same year
he died), hence he could not have been very aged and infirm at that time. Whether he came directly from England, or had previously lived in other towns in America, is uncertain. His name does not appear among the passengers on any of the early emigrant ships of which we have seen any record, and is not found on any of the lists of freemen contained in the Massachusetts Records. He may have come into the country when a minor. It is, perhaps, possible that he may have been either a son or brother of the Simon Hoyt who was in Dorchester quite early, and who "took the oath of freemen" in 1631; but there seems to be nothing to warrant our assuming the probability of any relationship between them. The name Simon does not occur among John's descendants for over a century. There was a John Hoyt in Connecticut as early as 1650, and, as Simon removed to Windsor, Ct., it is quite probable that John was his son; if so, John of Salisbury, Mass., could not be. Simon was some years older than John of Salisbury, and it hardly seems probable they were brothers.
From the Massachusetts Records, we find that permission "to begin a plantation at Merrimack" was granted Sept. 6, 1638,—plantation named "Colechester," Sept. 4, 1639,—name changed to "Salsbury," Oct. 7, 1640. On the Salisbury records is found the following entry:—
From the Massachusetts Records, we find that permission "to begin a plantation at Merrimack" was granted Sept. 6, 1638,—plantation named "Colechester," Sept. 4, 1639,—name changed to "Salsbury," Oct. 7, 1640. On the Salisbury records is found the following entry:—
"1639, the third month.
"At a meeting at merrimack of Mr Simone Bradstreet, Mr Samuell Dudly, Mr Danniell Dennisonn, Cristopher Batt, Samuell Winsley, John Sanders:
It was ordered that there shall be 2 divisions of Meadow, the one nerrer, the other farther, the nerrest shall haue fower Acres to Each 100 [£], the other left to farther Consideration.
It was further ordered that vpland for planting lotts shall be divided so as he that hath vnder 501' shall haue 4 Acres, and he that hath aboue 50li to 150li shall haue 6 Acres, and all aboue shall haue 4 Acres to Euerie 100".
Allso, it was ordered that all lotts granted to singlemen are on Condition that they shall inhabit here before the 6 of may next, and such as haue families that they shall inhabitt here before the last of October next." pp15-16
"According vnto the first division of the Towne of Salisbury there was granted vnto Jn° Hoyt a House Lott conteining p estimacon one acre more or lesse, lijng betweene the house Lotts of Willi Holdred & Jn° Dickison, butting vppon the streett & Anthoney Sadlers house Lott. Also there was granted vnto him a planting lott conteining p estimacon 4 acres more or less, lijng between the planting lotts of Willi Holdred & Anthoney Sadler, butting vppon the mill way, wth ye Northermost end, & the other end vppon the great Swamp: leading to ye fferrie. Also ther was granted vnto him twenty acres for a great Lott conteining p estimacon 20 acres more or less, lijng between the great Lotts of Willi Holdred & Josepth parker, butting vpon the river merimack, & the comon. Also ther was granted vnto him a meddow lott conteinjng p estimacon two acres more or less, lijng between the meddow lotts of Rob ffitts & Tho: Barnett, butting vppon ye Necke & the great Creeke, before ye Towne.
Also ther was granted vnto him a farr meddow Lott conteinjng p estimacon two acres more or less, lijng beyond ye Elders coue towards Hampton, butting vppon ye meddow Lott of Tho: Carter & so is incompassed wth the little River: All the abouesayd grants were confirmed by mr Cristopher Batt, mr Sam': Winsley, mr Sam: Hall, Tho: Bradbury, & Isack Buswell, according to the order of ye Towne pvided in thatt behalfe." pp16-17.
Hoyt family: A genealogical history of John Hoyt of Salisbury, and David Hoyt of Deerfield, (Massachusetts,) and their descendants: with some account of the earlier Connecticut Hoyts, and an appendix, containing the family record of William Barnes of Salisbury, a list of the first settlers of Salisbury and Amesbury, & c (Google eBook) by David Webster Hoyt (C. Benjamin Richardson, Boston, Ma. 1857)
The "Isack Buswell" mentioned in the last line of the excerpt is another of my 9x
great grandfathers.
So plainly John Hoyt owned a lot of land in Salisbury.
To be continued.
52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks Challenge. Basically, we have to post something every
week on a different ancestor, whether a story, picture, or research problem. For
this prompt I've tried to concentrate on ancestors I haven't researched as much
as I have others in my family. This week's subject is John Hoyt, my 9x great
grandfather. I've actually posted a little in the past about John but since I will be
posting about how the Barnes, Davis' and Hoyts became entwined I thought it
a good idea to start with John.
Once again, I've found a Hoyt family genealogy online at GoogleBooks and it
had quite a bit of information on John Hoyt's role as an original settler of the
town of Salisbury, Ma. which will take a few posts to go over:
First Generation.
(1) JOHN1 HOYT.
The earliest information concerning (1) John' Hoyt, which has yet been obtained, is
that he was one of the original settlers of Salisbury, Mass. His age at that time can
not be accurately determined, but, from the fact that he had at least two children born previous to 1639, it seems probable that he was born about 1610-15. He was chosen selectman, March, 1681-2, and moderator of town-meeting, April, 1687 (the same year
he died), hence he could not have been very aged and infirm at that time. Whether he came directly from England, or had previously lived in other towns in America, is uncertain. His name does not appear among the passengers on any of the early emigrant ships of which we have seen any record, and is not found on any of the lists of freemen contained in the Massachusetts Records. He may have come into the country when a minor. It is, perhaps, possible that he may have been either a son or brother of the Simon Hoyt who was in Dorchester quite early, and who "took the oath of freemen" in 1631; but there seems to be nothing to warrant our assuming the probability of any relationship between them. The name Simon does not occur among John's descendants for over a century. There was a John Hoyt in Connecticut as early as 1650, and, as Simon removed to Windsor, Ct., it is quite probable that John was his son; if so, John of Salisbury, Mass., could not be. Simon was some years older than John of Salisbury, and it hardly seems probable they were brothers.
From the Massachusetts Records, we find that permission "to begin a plantation at Merrimack" was granted Sept. 6, 1638,—plantation named "Colechester," Sept. 4, 1639,—name changed to "Salsbury," Oct. 7, 1640. On the Salisbury records is found the following entry:—
From the Massachusetts Records, we find that permission "to begin a plantation at Merrimack" was granted Sept. 6, 1638,—plantation named "Colechester," Sept. 4, 1639,—name changed to "Salsbury," Oct. 7, 1640. On the Salisbury records is found the following entry:—
"1639, the third month.
"At a meeting at merrimack of Mr Simone Bradstreet, Mr Samuell Dudly, Mr Danniell Dennisonn, Cristopher Batt, Samuell Winsley, John Sanders:
It was ordered that there shall be 2 divisions of Meadow, the one nerrer, the other farther, the nerrest shall haue fower Acres to Each 100 [£], the other left to farther Consideration.
It was further ordered that vpland for planting lotts shall be divided so as he that hath vnder 501' shall haue 4 Acres, and he that hath aboue 50li to 150li shall haue 6 Acres, and all aboue shall haue 4 Acres to Euerie 100".
Allso, it was ordered that all lotts granted to singlemen are on Condition that they shall inhabit here before the 6 of may next, and such as haue families that they shall inhabitt here before the last of October next." pp15-16
"According vnto the first division of the Towne of Salisbury there was granted vnto Jn° Hoyt a House Lott conteining p estimacon one acre more or lesse, lijng betweene the house Lotts of Willi Holdred & Jn° Dickison, butting vppon the streett & Anthoney Sadlers house Lott. Also there was granted vnto him a planting lott conteining p estimacon 4 acres more or less, lijng between the planting lotts of Willi Holdred & Anthoney Sadler, butting vppon the mill way, wth ye Northermost end, & the other end vppon the great Swamp: leading to ye fferrie. Also ther was granted vnto him twenty acres for a great Lott conteining p estimacon 20 acres more or less, lijng between the great Lotts of Willi Holdred & Josepth parker, butting vpon the river merimack, & the comon. Also ther was granted vnto him a meddow lott conteinjng p estimacon two acres more or less, lijng between the meddow lotts of Rob ffitts & Tho: Barnett, butting vppon ye Necke & the great Creeke, before ye Towne.
Also ther was granted vnto him a farr meddow Lott conteinjng p estimacon two acres more or less, lijng beyond ye Elders coue towards Hampton, butting vppon ye meddow Lott of Tho: Carter & so is incompassed wth the little River: All the abouesayd grants were confirmed by mr Cristopher Batt, mr Sam': Winsley, mr Sam: Hall, Tho: Bradbury, & Isack Buswell, according to the order of ye Towne pvided in thatt behalfe." pp16-17.
Hoyt family: A genealogical history of John Hoyt of Salisbury, and David Hoyt of Deerfield, (Massachusetts,) and their descendants: with some account of the earlier Connecticut Hoyts, and an appendix, containing the family record of William Barnes of Salisbury, a list of the first settlers of Salisbury and Amesbury, & c (Google eBook) by David Webster Hoyt (C. Benjamin Richardson, Boston, Ma. 1857)
The "Isack Buswell" mentioned in the last line of the excerpt is another of my 9x
great grandfathers.
So plainly John Hoyt owned a lot of land in Salisbury.
To be continued.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
A PLACE FOR EVERYONE & EVERYONE IN THEIR PLACE.
Another interesting find from Google ebooks!
I have several ancestral lines from Amesbury so I googled for a
history of the town and found Joseph Merrill's History of Amesbury.
It includes records year by year of early colonial town meetings, and I
found this on pages 89-90:
July 9th. A general meeting was held for the purpose of seating the
people in the new church, and "Liften Phillip Challes, Richard Currier,
William Osgood, Rober Jones William Barnes, John Weed, Thomas
Barnard sen Nathan Gold, Georg Martyn thes men above retten" to
apoint every man and woman in the towen there pertecular seatc
to set in in the metten house acording to there best judgment, exept
thes men wich the town themselves have plased."
Accordingly they proceeded to exercise their "best judgment," as
follows:—
"Richard Currier is to set at the tabell.
Thomas Barnard sen is to set in the seat behind the tabell.
Roberd Jons and John Weed are to set in the nor West corner of the
metten house.
The 2 seate in the nor West side Georg Martyn and Nathan Gould are
to set in.
Good wiffe barens is to set in the front seate at the tabell.
Good wide Osgood and Good wiffe Challes and Good wiffe Weed
are to set in the first seate in the sowethest sid of the metten house. 12
Good wiffe Currier and Good wiffe Barnard is to set in the second
seate in the sowett west side of the metten house.
Good wiffe Jons is to set in the second seate in the sowethwest side of
the metten house.
Good wiffe Gould is to set in the 3 seate in the soweth side of the
metten house.
Good wiffe Martyn is to set in the 3 seate in the soweth est side of
the metten house.
Georg Martyn do enter his contry desent to the plasen of his wiffe
in that seat.
William Sargent sen is to set at the tabell.
Edward Goodwin is to set at the tabell.
Jarret Hadden and Sargent Hoyt is to set in the seate at the
back of the tabell.
Edward Cottell and Edmund Elleatt and Hen Blasdell is to set
in the 2 seat on the nor west side of the metten house.
Samuel Foot, John Hoyt jr Thomas Barnard jr Thomas Sargent,
William Hoyt lsa Colby Thomas Kowell is to set in the ftrst seat
in the nor est side in the metten house.
William Huntinton Thomas Fowler, Thomas Nichols Rob Quinby is
to set in the 3 seat in the nor west side in the metten house.
John Pressy, Jemes Ercs, Ezckicll Worthen, John Huntinton is to set in
the 2 seate in the nor west side in the metten house.
Jemes Gorg Joh Barber is to set in the 3 seate in the nor est side of
the metten house."
The record is very much worn and it is probable that a few more may
have been seated. William Barnes was moderator of the meeting and,
of course, had a prominent seat assigned him. Forty or more were seated
and these constituted the principal inhabitants at this time, excepting
children. The seating seems to have been satisfactory, with a single
exception. Those seated at the table may have been deacons, but we
do not find the term used. They were, no doubt, seated somewhat
according to their standing in town. The seats were rudely constructed
settees or benches, and the whole outftt of the house was very simple
and plain. (p89-90)
There's a bunch of my ancestors on this list: John Hoyt, William Barnes,
William Sargent, Philip Challis. I don't know if that meeting house still exists
in Amesbury but if it does I could walk in and from this have a pretty good
idea of where they were seated at worship.
It's like that saying goes: all in their places with bright shiny faces!
I have several ancestral lines from Amesbury so I googled for a
history of the town and found Joseph Merrill's History of Amesbury.
It includes records year by year of early colonial town meetings, and I
found this on pages 89-90:
July 9th. A general meeting was held for the purpose of seating the
people in the new church, and "Liften Phillip Challes, Richard Currier,
William Osgood, Rober Jones William Barnes, John Weed, Thomas
Barnard sen Nathan Gold, Georg Martyn thes men above retten" to
apoint every man and woman in the towen there pertecular seatc
to set in in the metten house acording to there best judgment, exept
thes men wich the town themselves have plased."
Accordingly they proceeded to exercise their "best judgment," as
follows:—
"Richard Currier is to set at the tabell.
Thomas Barnard sen is to set in the seat behind the tabell.
Roberd Jons and John Weed are to set in the nor West corner of the
metten house.
The 2 seate in the nor West side Georg Martyn and Nathan Gould are
to set in.
Good wiffe barens is to set in the front seate at the tabell.
Good wide Osgood and Good wiffe Challes and Good wiffe Weed
are to set in the first seate in the sowethest sid of the metten house. 12
Good wiffe Currier and Good wiffe Barnard is to set in the second
seate in the sowett west side of the metten house.
Good wiffe Jons is to set in the second seate in the sowethwest side of
the metten house.
Good wiffe Gould is to set in the 3 seate in the soweth side of the
metten house.
Good wiffe Martyn is to set in the 3 seate in the soweth est side of
the metten house.
Georg Martyn do enter his contry desent to the plasen of his wiffe
in that seat.
William Sargent sen is to set at the tabell.
Edward Goodwin is to set at the tabell.
Jarret Hadden and Sargent Hoyt is to set in the seate at the
back of the tabell.
Edward Cottell and Edmund Elleatt and Hen Blasdell is to set
in the 2 seat on the nor west side of the metten house.
Samuel Foot, John Hoyt jr Thomas Barnard jr Thomas Sargent,
William Hoyt lsa Colby Thomas Kowell is to set in the ftrst seat
in the nor est side in the metten house.
William Huntinton Thomas Fowler, Thomas Nichols Rob Quinby is
to set in the 3 seat in the nor west side in the metten house.
John Pressy, Jemes Ercs, Ezckicll Worthen, John Huntinton is to set in
the 2 seate in the nor west side in the metten house.
Jemes Gorg Joh Barber is to set in the 3 seate in the nor est side of
the metten house."
The record is very much worn and it is probable that a few more may
have been seated. William Barnes was moderator of the meeting and,
of course, had a prominent seat assigned him. Forty or more were seated
and these constituted the principal inhabitants at this time, excepting
children. The seating seems to have been satisfactory, with a single
exception. Those seated at the table may have been deacons, but we
do not find the term used. They were, no doubt, seated somewhat
according to their standing in town. The seats were rudely constructed
settees or benches, and the whole outftt of the house was very simple
and plain. (p89-90)
There's a bunch of my ancestors on this list: John Hoyt, William Barnes,
William Sargent, Philip Challis. I don't know if that meeting house still exists
in Amesbury but if it does I could walk in and from this have a pretty good
idea of where they were seated at worship.
It's like that saying goes: all in their places with bright shiny faces!
Friday, July 17, 2009
THE CASE OF DOROTHY HOYT
My 9x great grandfather John Hoyt. Sr. was one of the first settlers of Salisbury, Essex Co.,
Mssachusetts and I was researching what if any action he saw in the Indian wars. It's
become a habit now to also check the Essex Court records for any ancestors who might
have appeared in relation to some case or another and the other night I found this:
"Court Held At Hampton, Oct. 9, 1677.
Jury of trials: John Severans, foreman, Tho. Mudgett, John Hoyt, jr., Tho. Barnard, John Samborn, Godfrey Deareborne, John Clifford, sr., Morris Hobbs, sr., Peter Foulsham, Moses Levitt, Daniell Lad, jr. and Tho. Hartshorne.
Grand jury: William White, foreman, Willi. Osgood, sr., Samll. Felloes, sr., Joseph French,
sr., Willi. Barnes, John Hoyt, sr., Humphrey Wilson, Robert Page, Willi. Fuller, Nathl. Batcheller, Nathll. Weare and Tho. Whittier."
-Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts Volume VI
Salem Ma. The Essex Institute, 1917 (page 339)
So John Hoyt and his son(also my ancestor) John Hoyt Jr. were jurors when the name of
a member of their own family was called:
"Dorothie Hoyt, called into court upon her presentment for putting on man's apparel, made default, she having gone out of the county. Her father, John Hoyt, appeared and owned the
fact, manifesting Dorothie's repentance, and desiring to fall under the penal part of the
sentence. It was ordered that she be apprehended as soon as she returned, and be severely whipped unless her father forthwith pay a fine of 40s. in corn or money.
Warrant, dated Aug. 20, 1677, and summons to witnesses, Amos Singletary, Joseph
Peasley and Mary Sargent, signed by Tho. Bradbury, for the court, and served by Tho. Sargent, constable of Amesbury." (p341-342).
This fascinated me. Dorothy had shocked our Puritan forebears by wearing men's
clothes! Had she traded her dress for a man's trousers and shirt because they were more
practical for some chore? Or was it simply a prank that went badly astray and was
observed by three witnesses?
Why had she left the county? Did she flee, or was she perhaps sent away because the
family feared she might say or do something in court to add to their shame?
Where did she go? I haven't found any other record of her as yet, so perhaps she never returned.
Did John Hoyt Sr. pay the fine?
I guess we'll never know. The part of me that is a historian tells me that it couldn't have
ended well for Dorothy Hoyt. If she left her family for good, life for her would have been
quite hard, and she would have found the same reaction everywhere if she'd continued her "presentiment" for men' clothes. And if perhaps her family sent her off to live with some relatives, it's likely every effort would have been made to prevent her from any further
outburst of unseemly behavior.
But my imagination hopes that Dorothy Hoyt beat the odds and found happiness
somewhere as well as comfortable boots to go along with her shirt and trousers!
Mssachusetts and I was researching what if any action he saw in the Indian wars. It's
become a habit now to also check the Essex Court records for any ancestors who might
have appeared in relation to some case or another and the other night I found this:
"Court Held At Hampton, Oct. 9, 1677.
Jury of trials: John Severans, foreman, Tho. Mudgett, John Hoyt, jr., Tho. Barnard, John Samborn, Godfrey Deareborne, John Clifford, sr., Morris Hobbs, sr., Peter Foulsham, Moses Levitt, Daniell Lad, jr. and Tho. Hartshorne.
Grand jury: William White, foreman, Willi. Osgood, sr., Samll. Felloes, sr., Joseph French,
sr., Willi. Barnes, John Hoyt, sr., Humphrey Wilson, Robert Page, Willi. Fuller, Nathl. Batcheller, Nathll. Weare and Tho. Whittier."
-Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County, Massachusetts Volume VI
Salem Ma. The Essex Institute, 1917 (page 339)
So John Hoyt and his son(also my ancestor) John Hoyt Jr. were jurors when the name of
a member of their own family was called:
"Dorothie Hoyt, called into court upon her presentment for putting on man's apparel, made default, she having gone out of the county. Her father, John Hoyt, appeared and owned the
fact, manifesting Dorothie's repentance, and desiring to fall under the penal part of the
sentence. It was ordered that she be apprehended as soon as she returned, and be severely whipped unless her father forthwith pay a fine of 40s. in corn or money.
Warrant, dated Aug. 20, 1677, and summons to witnesses, Amos Singletary, Joseph
Peasley and Mary Sargent, signed by Tho. Bradbury, for the court, and served by Tho. Sargent, constable of Amesbury." (p341-342).
This fascinated me. Dorothy had shocked our Puritan forebears by wearing men's
clothes! Had she traded her dress for a man's trousers and shirt because they were more
practical for some chore? Or was it simply a prank that went badly astray and was
observed by three witnesses?
Why had she left the county? Did she flee, or was she perhaps sent away because the
family feared she might say or do something in court to add to their shame?
Where did she go? I haven't found any other record of her as yet, so perhaps she never returned.
Did John Hoyt Sr. pay the fine?
I guess we'll never know. The part of me that is a historian tells me that it couldn't have
ended well for Dorothy Hoyt. If she left her family for good, life for her would have been
quite hard, and she would have found the same reaction everywhere if she'd continued her "presentiment" for men' clothes. And if perhaps her family sent her off to live with some relatives, it's likely every effort would have been made to prevent her from any further
outburst of unseemly behavior.
But my imagination hopes that Dorothy Hoyt beat the odds and found happiness
somewhere as well as comfortable boots to go along with her shirt and trousers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)