|
a.
|
Note: Named in William's will as "Margaret". Richard Howell is identified as "son-in-law" in a real estate deed between William Hallock and Richard Howell, which ties him to "one" of William's daughters. I don't know where the source is for which daughter, but probably from a first name reference in a document of Richard Howell, like his will, or similar document. __________ To: nmt1@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [LI-Rooters] Abigail Hallock From: Kalamcc@aol.com Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 22:19:32 EDT Norris, Thanks for your answering our note.We are going thru our Horton material to see if we can find any furthur clue. It appears that Margaret Hallock is on the 1698 Southold Town Census residing with Joseph Reeves, his wife, Abigail and their children Joseph Jr., Benjamin, David, Ezikias, Solomon, Abigail, Mary, Margaret Hallock widow, Dorothy Osmond. It is possible that this Abigail was the daughter of William & Margaret Hallock. This is an idea that we have not had time to investigate. We strongly believe she was not the wife of Caleb Horton. The theory that there was an Abigail, sister of William, seems probable, but in all likelyhood, not provable. Ned has done some great work and may very well have found the answer. Let us know if you any furthur ideas. Thanks so much for your response. Kathy & Larry _______________ 1686 CENSUS Margritt Haliock: 1 male, 2 females Now, which male is with her: The following Hallocks are on their own: John, 3m - 4f, Peter, 1m - 1f. That leaves two: William and Thomas. Best guess is that Thomas is elsewhere or in someone else's household (altho he should be married to Hope Comstock by now... maybe he's living in New London at this time?? - doubtful, since he had inherited land from his dad.) Best guess is this is William, still at home, single, and one of the sisters... although it could be a spouse of the male plus Margaret to make 2 females. _________________ To: Norris <nmt1@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [LI-Rooters] Did Caleb Horton Marry Abigail Hallock, c 1665 ?? From: Smith <ehlsmith@suffolk.lib.ny.us> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:50:40 -0500 (EST) (See William's notes for more of this e-mail) As the article points out, this will contradicts several statements which have appeared in print- William Hallock did not have a daughter Margaret apparently, and Elizabeth was not his oldest daughter. No daughter's married name appears in the portion of the will cited. Ned Smith ______________ Note: Article "The Daughters of William Hallock" says one of his sources indicated that the 1928 changed the order of the daughters on the basis that Elizabeth may have been from an earlier wife, born in England. This gives rise to the thought there might be two Elizabeth's. But, I think not, the will clearly states the girls are to be paid by the boys in the order of their birth and then lists them, by year to be paid. Elizabeth was the fourth. _____________ Long Island genealogies, gives Elizabeth a husband named "Harrud", not mentioned in Hallock Genealogy. This marriage IS in Torrey, "b 1675". Unknown first name... Which Elizabeth?? ______________ To: LI-Rooters@GenExchange.com Subject: HALLOCK, Elizabeth md HARRUD, 1675 From: Norris <nmt1@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:35:06 +0000 Torrey shows that an Elizabeth Hallock md [__?__] Harrud, b 1675 (first born, or first event). Her names are not in brackets, indicating this marriage coming from a VR. No location given. He then shows Elizabeth Hallock marrying Richard Howell (of Southold), b 1676, residence Southold, Long Island. Torrey does not show these are the same woman (ie 1st marr, etc). Does anyone know if these are the same woman? Two Elizabeth's in this time period? Was the Harrud marriage, no location given in Torrey for folks in another part of New England? Norris ________________ Long Island Genealogies Pg 96 Elisabeth3 m. 1st Harrud, m. 2d 1675 Richard Howell _________________ To: <nmt1@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [LI-Rooters] HALLOCK, Elizabeth md HARRUD, 1675 From: "Edward Smith" <ehlsmith@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 08:09:40 -0400 Norris- John Harrud was a Southold man. The info in the 1992 Addendum to the Hallock Genealogy is very confusing about Elizabeth. It says Elizabeth "possibly married" Richard Howell and adds "While Richard was probably married (order uncertain) to Elizabeth Harrud, the widow of John Harrud, it is uncertain if she was the mother of any of his children. Elizabeth 3 [i.e. Elizabeth Hallock] and Richard had: [John, Daniel, Richard etc.]" Certainly makes it sound as if Elizabeth, d/o William Hallock, and Elizabeth, wid/o John Harrud, were two different people. Yet the index lists an Elizabeth [Hallock] [Harrud] Howell for that page [page EHe-1]. To further complicate the situation, in an appendix to the book and in the SCHS Register (vol. 18, no. 2, pp34-36), Jack Phillips shows that the will of William Hallock very clearly indicates Elizabeth was not his oldest daughter, but his second youngest. Thus, I am not sure if she could have been the mother of all the children ascribed to her, especially to John Howell, b. 1670. One final point to increase the confusion- the book shows among the descendants of Richard and Elizabeth Howell: "John 4 Howell [note the generation numbers refer to descent from Peter 1 Hallock], born 24 June 1670 and died 1724/25. Married Margaret who was born 1674 and died February 1708/09. They had: a. John 5 Howell ...[snip] b. Jonathan 5 Howell. Had son: i- Richard 6 Howell. Had son (a). Sylvester 7 Howell. Married Nancy Young. Resided in West Mattituck,L.I. They had: (i). Mary 8 A. Howell. Married the Rev. Charles Brown. " Regards, Ned -----Original Message----- From: Norris <nmt1@ix.netcom.com> To: LI-Rooters@GenExchange.com <LI-Rooters@GenExchange.com> Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 6:40 PM Subject: [LI-Rooters] HALLOCK, Elizabeth md HARRUD, 1675 > >Torrey shows that an Elizabeth Hallock md [__?__] Harrud, b 1675 >(first born, or first event). Her names are not in brackets, >indicating this marriage coming from a VR. No location given. > >He then shows Elizabeth Hallock marrying Richard Howell (of Southold), >b 1676, residence Southold, Long Island. > >Torrey does not show these are the same woman (ie 1st marr, etc). > >Does anyone know if these are the same woman? Two Elizabeth's in this >time period? Was the Harrud marriage, no location given in Torrey for >folks in another part of New England? > > > >Norris _____________ NOTE: History of Mattituck gives a review/analysis of the 1698 Census. Richard Howell shows NO WIFE in his entry... there is NO Elizabeth in his household in 1700. ______________ To: LI-Rooters@GenExchange.com Subject: Re: [LI-Rooters] HALLOCK, Elizabeth md HARRUD, 1675 From: Norris <nmt1@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 23:45:27 +0000 On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:35:06 +0000, you wrote: >Torrey shows that an Elizabeth Hallock md [__?__] Harrud, b 1675 >(first born, or first event). Her names are not in brackets, >indicating this marriage coming from a VR. No location given. > >He then shows Elizabeth Hallock marrying Richard Howell (of Southold), >b 1676, residence Southold, Long Island. > >Torrey does not show these are the same woman (ie 1st marr, etc). > >Does anyone know if these are the same woman? Two Elizabeth's in this >time period? Was the Harrud marriage, no location given in Torrey for >folks in another part of New England? Thanks to Ned Smith for info from the Hallock Addendum. After consulting that, Torrey, and the History of Mattituck, including, and especially, the 1698 Census showing that Elizabeth, the first wife of Richard Howell was NOT with him, and presumed dead.... I have come up with the following scenario. Would appreciate hearing any other info: FACTS: Elizabeth was the second youngest daughter of Wm Hallock. Named, specifically, by age, in William's will. Wm Hallock gave Richard Howell land, describing him as son-in-law, in 1675. However, "Son-in-law," in those days, could mean EITHER step-son or son-in-law, which casts a shadow over the whole idea of Elizabeth Hallock being his wife. In fact, if he was married to a Hallock at all, he could have been married to ANY of the Hallock girls... for, as we shall see, the Elizabeth he referred to in his will could have been, but was likely NOT, Elizabeth Hallock. Torrey shows Elizabeth Hallock md (__?__) Harrud, first born 1675, Richard Howell, first born 1676?. He does not show 1st, 2nd, etc, for whatever that means. The 1698 Census does NOT show an Elizabeth with Richard Howell. I take this set of facts could be interpreted as follows. Would appreciate any more info, thoughts. 1. Elizabeth Hallock and another woman Elizabeth (__) existed. 2. Elizabeth Hallock md Richard Howell by 1676 and probably had all of his children. 3. Elizabeth (___) md (__?__) Harrud by 1675. 4. Elizabeth (Hallock) Howell (or could have been ANY of the Hallock daughters) died before the 1698 Census. 5. Mr. Harrud died, making Elizabeth (___) a widow. 6. Richard Howell md Widow Elizabeth (___) Harrud between 1698 and 1709. 7. Richard Howell makes his will in 1709, referring to wife: "Elizabeth", meaning Elizabeth (___), NOT Elizabeth Hallock. 8. Elizabeth (___) Howell died on March 24, 1724, NOT Elizabeth (Hallock) Howell. Comments?? Norris -- Silver Bullet <nmt1@ix.netcom.com> Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ntgen/index.html --------------------------------------- {Abstract} "To all Christian people, I Wm Hallioke doe send Greeting: Whereas I the sd William Haloke doe stand possest of a certain tract of Land situate in Southold, Know ye for divers good considerations me thereunto moveing, yet with the reservations and conditions hereafter mentioned I have by this my present writing, given granted and confirmed and doe hereby give grant and confirme unto my son-in-law Richd Howel of ye sd Town, Twenty rood {rod} wide of land from North to South sea lying and being next unto the lands of William Hallioke on the east side, and John Conckline Junr on the West side. And the sd Richard Howell doth by these presents oblidge himselfe and his heirs forever hereafter unto the sd William Halliok, and his heirs that what land soever the sd Richard Howel shall from time to time take in from the common, he shall set up and maintain a sufficient fence:and that the said Richard Howell shall not lett or farme said land by the neighbourhood to be honest peacable and quiett, and lastly that in the case sd Richard Howell should happen to die without issue that then the said land to fall unto John Hallioke, he the sd John Hallioke paying for such fencing, housing as shall be found on said land, judged by two indifferent men of the Town. "In testimony whereof, and that this is my actual and effectual deed of gift, I have to these presents set my hand and seal this 26th day of April 1675. Witnesses the mark of ISAAC ARNOLD WILLIAM H HALLOKE JOHN TUTTHILL ____________ My question: Son-in-law could mean son-in-law as we understand it, or could mean step-son. If son-in-law, why didn't he say: "in the case my daughter has no heirs...." He set it up that Richard could have kids from a later wife and still keep the land..... This seems to favor the relationship as step-son, not son-in-law. ____________ Per Hallock web site - comments: " Now this abstract is rather contrary to the legend of the preceding pages whereby Peter supposedly gave the land to Richard Howell, and also it is written in such a manner as to suggest that William gave the land to Howell as a gift, and because he was the son-in-law of William, and not due to any promise which was made to the Widow Howell or even the daughter, Margaret Howell. However, any arguments which discount the legend of Peter Hallocks existence could hereby be countered in that if Richard Howell was the son of Margaret Howell, and in that theory, there was no Widow Howell (nor Peter Hallock), and that Richard Howell married the daughter of William and Margaret (Howell) Hallock, then he would have married his own half-sister! Although marriage between even as close as first cousins was permissible, a marriage between sister and brother, even though half sister and half brother, would never be permitted, nor even realistic. Records also show the exact date of the death of William Hallock, as on 28 Sep 1684, as he left a will, dated "Southold February 10th 1684." In this rather long and involved document, he leaves all his worldly possessions to his wife, Margaret, three of his four sons, and his five daughters. Very deliberately and with great conviction, William goes into detail about his lack of favor for the Quakers, and he threatens to disinherit any of his children who should ever join that religious group. Williams eldest son, John, had previously married (ca. 1678) Abigail Swazey, a Quakeress, and John had converted to her religion. However, family ties were quite evidently very great, and although John is never mentioned in the main body of the will, William adds his second-last paragraph to include his son John, although perhaps disgruntledly. . . _________________ MARRIAGES... Harrud - Howell.... We can scratch my previous theory that Harrud was a second husband, after 1709, of the widow of Richard Howell. In the Southold Town Records (Printed pg 413-4), is an indenture agreement between Richard and Elizabeth Howell, dated 01/15/1686-7, to indenture the son of Elizabeth Howell, George Harrud, to Joshua Horton. Joshua to clothe, feed, learn to read & write, and train George Harrud to be a carpenter. Indenture to last four years. Can anyone guess what age this might typically have been done... maybe 14 or so... ?? If 14, he would have been born, say 1672 or so.... The "gift" of land to "son-in-law" Richard Howell by William Hallock was 1675.... son-in-law in those days could mean step-son, or son-in-law as we think of it today... So... the mystery continues..... If the land deed was because of son-in-law as we think of that term today, it casts some doubt on who the mother might be of Richard Howell's older children... Virginia Wines in Pioneers of Riverhead says son John b May 24, 1670. (I'm not sure where she's getting that.. it's not in Southold Town Records and Salmon records hadn't started yet..??) Same source says Jacob was oldest child of Richard.... Or... Richard Howell could have been a step-son of William Hallock and Elizabeth Hallock never his wife.... (that would mean they would be half-siblings). I still don't think an uncle would marry a half-niece in those days, as the Hallock Genealogy says happened. _______________ http://www.uftree.com/UFT/WebPages/kalamcc/HOWELL/i0020010.htm#s1 He married Elizabeth widow of John Harrud between 23 November 1684 & 26 Sept. 1685 in Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York.(3) Elizabeth was born 1655 in ---.(4) (Additional notes for Elizabeth widow of John Harrud(5)) Elizabeth died 4 March 1724/1725 in Southold, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, at age 69. John & Elizabeth Harrud's children: John & George. These are receipts regarding John Harrud: 11/21/1670 - Agreement between John Harrud & Elizabeth re. shingles. 5/15/1675 - Letters from Nathaniel Jayne re. return of oxen, addressed to John Harrud. 1/17/1679 -Agreement between John Harrud & Jeremiah Wells re. 16/12s. 11/23/1684 - Statement of John Roe & his wife about expressed wishes of John Harrud concerning disposition of his property to his wife & children. [Note: This seems to indicate John Harrud died before 11/23/1684] 9/26/1685 - Receipt to Elizabeth Howell 14/11s/9d "of her former husband's estate." This item is from Elizabeth Howell. Second receipt is to Richard Howell for goods to the value of 3s/3d "of his wife's estate". Receipt is signed by Benjamin Moore & also lists other payments made by Richard Howell to others. 12/10/1685 - Account of payments made to several creditors out of the estate of John Harrud, deceased. Payments were made by Richard Howell, beginning 12/10/1685. Includes expenses of maintaining the Harrud children. 2/16/1686/7 - Receipt signed by Stephen Bailey for 40 shillings received from Elizabeth Howell, "ye widow & relique of John Harrud,: deceased, for the account of Josiah Bartholomew. No date - Elizabeth Howell apprentices her son, John Harrud, to Jonathan Horton for the period of three years. 1/15/1686/7 - [not in this collection of documents, but inserted as a part of the Elizabeth Harrud-Howell record.] A copy of Liber B 413/76 Southhold Town Records - indenture of George Harrud by his mother, Elizabeth, to Joshua Horton to learn the trade of house carpenter. 5/27/1689 - Receipt given by Elizabeth Howell, to her husband, Richard Howell, for a horse which was part of her late husband's, John Harrud's, estate. 17/1689 -Receipt given by _____ Howell, Clerk, to Elizabeth Harrud for proving will, recording the inventory and letters of administration in settlement of her husband's estate. 11/24/1687 - Inventory made by Jonathan Horton & Stephen Bailey of the estate of John Harrud. [list located in Wilbur Franklin Howell's notebooks page xxii] These show John & Elizabeth were married before 21 November 1670. They show John was deceased by 23 November 1684. Elizabeth had married Richard Howell by 26 September 1685. To: nmt1@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: [LI-Rooters] HALLOCK, Elizabeth md HARRUD, 1675 From: Kalamcc@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:21:17 EDT CC: LI-Rooters@genexchange.com The following is a quote from the a very authoritative work by Thomas H. Donnelly: " RICHARD1 HOWELL, the progenitor of the Howell family which arose, in the New World, on the North Fork of eastern Long Island, is first mentioned historically in the Southold Town Records, in a deed dated 26 Apr 1675, by which "..William Hallieke..for divers considerations me hereunto moving..doe hereby give grant and confirm unto my son in law Richard Howell of Southold, twenty roods wide of land from North to South Sea, lying and being next unto ye lands of William Halliock, on ye east side and John Conklin Jun on ye west side--and ye sd Richard Howell doth oblidge himself unto the sd William Hallock that what land he shall from time to time take in from ye comon, he shall sett up and maintaine a sufficient fence and shall not lett said land to any person but shall be approved by ye neighborhood-and in case sd Richard Howell die without issue, then ye sd land to fall to John Hallocke he paying for the houseing and fencing." ( ) ( ). Elizabeth Hallock, the daughter of William Hallock, is said to have been the first wife of Richard Howell ( ). While this may be true, it cannot be accepted as proven, since it appears to have been derived from the wording of the deed cited previously, the will of Richard Howell, naming his wife, Elizabeth, and the record of her death. As will be seen, these last two points refer to his wife, Elizabeth, the former wife of John Harrud, who might have been born as Elizabeth Hallock but who, if she was, could not have been the wife of Richard Howell in 1675, since it appears that John Harrud was still living then." Later in the same work: "A receipt dated 26 Sep 1685, for £14 11s 9d, "..of her former husband's estate..", from Elizabeth Howell, indicates that Richard Howell had married the widow, Elizabeth Harrud, by that date. A second receipt, also dated 26 Sep 1685, and signed by Benjamin Moore, indicates that Richard Howell had received goods to the value of 3s 3d "..of his wife's estate..". Another receipt, dated 16 Feb 1686/7, indicates that Stephen Bailey had received 40s from Elizabeth Howell, "..ye widow and relique of John Harrud..", for the account of Josiah Bartholomew ( ). Elizabeth, the daughter of William Hallock, was mentioned in his will, written on 10 Feb 1684 and proved on 21 Oct 1684 ( )." Hope this is of some help. Kathy & Larry -----------------------
|
