It is generally believed that life was simpler during the early days of American colonization.The settlers worried about attacks by Indians, but they were few and far between.They had concerns about the weather, but for the most part, the Connecticut climate was mild and crops grew well.Everyone followed a stoic lifestyle, working from dawn to dusk during the week and socializing between intermittal breaks in the day-long Sunday worship service.
However, that wasn’t always the way it was.At times, there was social intrigue too that stirred the community to dramatic proportions.
Martha Mead, believed to be the only daughter of William and Philippa Mead of Stamford, unwillingly became the subject of one of the most controversial legal cases in 17th Century New England.
If early records are accurate, Martha was born in the town of Lydd in County Kent, England, about 1632.She had an older brother, Joseph, and younger brother John.
After landing at Boston, the Meads moved first to a new settlement at Wethersfield, Conn., and then on to Stamford, where William was one of the community’s first landowners.
She was just 9 years old when her father received a home lot and five acres of land as one of the original 42 settlers in Stamford.Twelve years later, she married John Richardson of Stamford and seemed to be well on her way to becoming a typical New England housewife.
But there was trouble and considerable tribulation just around the corner for Martha and her family.
Martha had a problem.Several months prior to her wedding, she discovered she was pregnant.She told her parents, her brothers and fiancé.
“I don’t know how it happened and I don’t know who the father is,” she confessed to her probably disbelieving audience.
As they attempted to sort through the facts, Martha recalled there was a day while she had been working as a domestic servant in the home of one of the Stamford residents when she lost consciousness during an epileptic seizure.When she came to, she had been taken to a bedroom in the house and, she suggested, may have been raped.There were only two men in the house at the time, and, although Martha knew both of them, she could not identify which one may have been her attacker.
Her husband acknowledged he was not the father, but he did not want her to be castigated in the eyes of the community, so he suggested they move to Roxbury, Mass., a small town near Boston, and live there until after the baby had been born.Outside the immediate family, nobody knew the real reason for the move.
The baby was born, but died within its first month of life, and Martha and John returned to Stamford.
All of this had taken place in 1653, but a year later a rumor surfaced in Stamford that Martha had been pregnant at the time of her wedding, that she had given birth to a baby in Massachusetts and the baby had died under mysterious circumstances.
One can only imagine the excitement the report stirred in the small, conservative Puritan town.For weeks, the gossip about Martha Mead was spoken in hushes.Then it broke into the open, and was brought to the attention of the magistrates in New Haven, the colonial capital of the province.
When Martha was confronted with the charges, she denied she had ever been pregnant.However on Oct. 18, 1654, a Court of Magistrates was called in New haven to hear the case, and “take whatever action it deemed appropriate.”
Present at the hearing were Theophilus Eaton, Esq., Governor of Connecticut; Stephen Goodyeer, Deputy Governor, and Magistrates Samuell Eaton, Francis Newman, Benjamin Fenn and William Leete.
The charge was that “Martha Mead, now the wife of John Richardson of Stamford, was guilty of fornication, proued by her being with child some months before marriage, and that to avoyde or stopp reproach, her husband had carried her to Roxbury in the Massachusets, where she was deliuered of a child in January last, at the house of Mr. Joshua Hughes, wch child luied aboute or aboue a moneth and then dyed, but how and in what manner, the court though worth inquirie.”
Richardson admitted his wife was with child before marriage, that he knew of her condition, but denied he was the father.He said he took her from Stamford to Roxbury before childbearing to avoid the public shame.
“When did you marry Martha Mead?”the Court asked.“And when did she have the child?”
“I married her at the latter part of wheat harvest,” Richardson replied.“The baby was born in January.It passed away less than a month later.We returned to Stamford, but thought there was nothing to be gained by opening our personal discomfort.”
Martha confirmed she had been with child before her marriage, but boldly declared, “I neither did – no do – know who is the father.”“I was in a fit of swooning in my Master’s house in Stamford,” she explained.“While I was unconscious, I was carried to a bed in another room and I was taken advantage of.When I came to, I saw Joseph Garnesy in the room, but I do not know who it was that abused me.”
The court read the written evidence and heard the verbal testimony of several Stamford witnesses.In addition to Garnesy, one other man, John Ross, had been in the house when the incident allegedly occurred.Her brother, Joseph, and several townfolk, including goodwife Knapp, goodwife Stocke, goodwife Buxton,goodwife Webb and goodwife Emry, testified Martha had been subject to “fainting and swooningfitts, mixed with short distempers of frenzy.”
In its findings, the court ruled it could do nothing else but find Martha Mead Richardson “guilty as charged, both of knowne fornication and continewed impudent lying, beeleeuing that no woman can be gotten with child without some knowledg, consent and delight in the acting thereof, and that she deserves to be publiquely and severely corrected by whipping, but considering she isnow great with child, and according to testimony apt to fall into the forementioned fitts, with due respect to her condition it is ordered, that tenn pounds be paid as a fine to the jurisdiction within a years time for her heinous miscarriages.”
The court acknowleged that “John Richardson, and her brother, Joseph Mead, did before the court as sureties ingage, and entered into a recognizance of fifty pounds for ye same, and vnder the same penalty promised and bound themselues that, betwixt this and the court of magisrats in May next, they would bring a satisfying certificate from Roxbury concerning ye death of ye child, both wch being duely pformed their ingagmnt and recognizance are voyd & discharged, but till ten stand in force, and in ye meane time if she duely acknowleg her sinn and truly declare who is ye father of the child, the court will consider of some further mitigation.”
Final disposition of the case lingered on through three additional hearings.
On May 28, 1656, Joseph Mead and John Richardson appeared in court at New haven and acknowledged “payment of the fine of tenn pounds which was not required, but they desired forbearance till next Michaelmas when they then see it paide.”The court granted their request.
On Sept. 27, 1657, William Mead, Martha’s father, and his youngest son, John, appeared in court petitioning for abatement of two fines.John had been fined ten pounds in a subsequent slander and harassment action, brought by a Stamford neighbor while the fine against Martha and levied against Joseph mead and John Richardson remained unpaid.
The court considered both and granted that “half of each should be abated, provided the otherhalf be paid forthwith.”
The issue was finally put to rest when Joseph brought in two “milch cowes” whichhe offered as payment of the fines.The court, following a recess to determine the value of the two cows, argued the “cowes” were worth “only eight pound tenn shillings,” but “in fauour to them (Joseph Mead and John Richardson),” the court would accept the cows as payment, and acquit and discharge the fines.”
As a tragic aftermath, Martha Mead and john Richardson also lost her second baby, who like the first, died early in its infancy.The Richardsons never had any other children of record and shortly after the case was resolved moved from Stamford to nearby Rye, NY.
Although there is nothing to suggest the events were connected, both Joseph and John also left Stamford in 1657, crossing Long Island Sound to become involved in the founding of the town of Hemstead, Long Island.However they liked Connecticut better and two years later returned with their families – not to Stamford, but to its next door neighbor, the new settlement of Hogs Neck, later to be known as Greenwich.
William Mead and his wife, Philippa, remained in Stamford where they lived on the west side of West Street.Philippa died in 1657, possibly during an outbreak of malaria.An epidemic is suspected because records show only 16 deaths the entire year of 1657.Eleven of them occurred during the period between July 21 and Sept. 19.
William, the founding father of the family passed away in 1663, apparently of natural causes.However, neither of his two sons – Joseph and John – nor his daughter, Martha, ever returned to live in Stamford.
There was early speculation that William and Philippa had a fourth child, who died in 1657.There is no evidence of such a birth by Philippa and, in fact, it may have been Martha’s second child, who was born in 1655, and diedyoung.
EDITOR’S NOTE:There is recent information that Mary and John Richardson did live in Westchester county, New York, and had three children, all girls.The three were Bethia, born 1654, and married to John Ketcham; Mary, born 1655, and married to Joseph Hadley, and Elizabeth, born 1656, and married to Gabriel Leggett.As we know from the court records above, Mary was in trial in new Haven in Oct. 1854 and was pregnant at the time.Thus, it is possible, although not proved, that Mary’s second child did live and was named Bethia.John Richardson died in 1679 and Martha remarried Capt. Thomas Williams.They had no children.This is an interesting new branch of the Mead/Meade family to look into.If anyone has additional information, please share it through the next issue of the Mead-e Family Tree.
If your surname is Mead and you spell it without a final “e,” the chances are good that you are a descendant of John Mead, the youngest son of William Mead, who arrived in the American colonies from England about 1635.It is generally believed the Meads – William, his wife and their three children, Joseph, Martha, and John – first settled in the Boston area.All of the mead children were between 1 and 5 years of age when they made the trip across the Atlantic Ocean.
After a few years, they apparently joined a group of pioneer friends and neighbors and marches through the wilderness across Massachusetts to a new settlement called Wethersfield, CT.It was about 10 miles southeast of present-day Hartford on the banks of the Connecticut River.Wethersfield only proved to be a temporary home for the Meads.In 1641, they moved again, this time about 70 miles south and west to the small community of Stamford.
The early part of the Mead history in New England is conjecture, but on December 7, 1641, William Mead was given “a homelot and five acres of land” by Town of Stamford.He was one of the first 42 landowners there.From that point on, the history of the family is quite well documented, largely through the exhaustive efforts of the late Dr. Spencer P. Mead, himself a descendant of William through the John line.
John Mead, the youngest child of colonial patriarch William Mead, was at best, very independent, headstrong, often at odds with authority in his early adult years.He had no profession, as such, but had started acquiring land ownership in the area at an early age.Disputes with others in the community were common and he seemed to have difficulty getting along with his Stamford neighbors.He had a number of run-ins with the community, its law enforcement officials and the church.
In the 1656 records of the Colony of Jurisdiction or New Haven, John appeared before the magistrates on May 26.Although there appears to be no criminal wrongdoing, Mead was convicted of “having done great wrong” to Richard Law, a police officer in Stamford, by his words and deeds.Mead was sentenced by the magistrates of New haven to be committed “to prison till they may further consider the matter.”
The trouble continued for several years and probably was exacerbated by the fact that his older sister, Martha, had been prosecuted before the same court two years earlier on charges of “fornication, proved by her being with child some months before marriage.”(The trial of Martha Mead was featured in the Vol. I, No. 2 issue of the Mead-e Family Tree.See Trial and Tribulation of Martha on Genealogy and History )
Somewhat ironically, John Mead’s problems in court began with a law suit he had filed against law charging that Law “being constable in the place and to execute justice to all in an equal way, had denied justice to him in refusing to give him an attachment to recover some damage that had suffered.”Law argued that “he came for an attachment that he might take the estate of one who he knew was not to pay, nor had he anything to attach but the clothes to his back, and they were not his own either.”
Law said John was told “that what was due for him to pay, he should have the money paid him the next day, but he refused and would have the man’s estate for that which other men were to pay.”The court reporter added his own opinion to the testimony, writing the case “was long & tedious.”He reported the court “saw plainly & therefore declared” Law had done John mead no wrong, nor had he any cause to complain.It would seem that would have ended the action in court, but apparently, neither John nor Law were willing to let it drop.
John advised the court that Law had, in examining some witnesses for him, “showed much discontent, and had expressed himself against him in a threatening way.”Law did not deny the words.The court said, it did not approve of John’s provocation, “yet they witnessed against Law for his words.”Law acknowledged “the evil of his spirit and speech” and said he was sorry for it. When the Court turned back to John, he made further accusations, apparently aggravating the patience of the magistrates.They rebuked him saying he “had troubled himself and this court with things of little weight and moment” and he “had no reason to complain.”When they asked him if he had anything else to say, he replied, “No.”
However, Law and George Slawson, a deputy for the church at Stamford, then made complaint against John for slander against the church.After lengthy testimony with charges and counter-charges, the magistrates ruled that John had “done great wrong to Richard Law in his place as a public officer, that he had been an incendiary and worker of great disturbance at Stamford, that he had slandered the church, etc., therefore they agreed for the present to commit him to prison till they may further consider the matter.”
After John was sent to prison, he “sent a writing” to the court and “acknowledged his miscarriages and what an evil frame of spirithe had been.”The court believed the letter fell short of respect for his sins, but “upon the intreaty of Mr. Bishop, Richard Law and John Waterberry, the court inclined to favor.”John was released from prison, but not without a strict rebuke from the court.
The magistrates told him they “did not remember that they met with such a case since they sat as a court, wherein there has been so much malice and bitterness of spirit in persecuting, both against the church and against Richard Law, the only officer for civil affairs in that town, rendering him as a most vile man, neither fit for church nor common wealth.”
By way of sentence, the court ordered John “to make a full acknowledgement at Stamford, both to clear the church, Richard Law and John Waterbery, for though he hath laid heavy charges, yet had not proved them; that he pay Richard law, toward his charge and trouble in this business, (he being in other respects satisfied with his acknowledgment), 10 pounds; and that he and his brother, (or some other man in whom the court may be satisfied), be bound in a bond of 50 pounds for his god behavior for time to come; and that he pay the marshall 20 shillings for his trouble; and if this acknowledgment is not performed at Stamford to satisfaction, he is to be bound over to answer it at the court of magistrates next October.”
“And John Mead and Joseph Mead both entered into bond before the court, that the said John mead shall behave himself peaceably and not fall into these or the like miscarriages again, upon the forfeiture of the said bond, to be levied upon either or both their estates.”
The records of the court continued as follows:“After sentence, John Mead acknowledged his miscarriage in his abominable slandering and reproaching the church, and the courts tenderness not withstanding his horrible and sinful way, which has proceeded from a bitter root of prejudice and self confidence in his own way, which has hindered him from taking advice for his good, and for all the particulars wherein he has charged Goodman Law, he confessed he had no cause and desires he may be truly humbled for it, he has forged no agreements, falsified no testimonies, nor denied him justice, etc., much less had he cause to say that these were reigning evils in him, but he desires to take shame of these things to himself, and all others may take warning by him, and that he may walk in a better frame for the future.”The court action was before Theophilus Eaton, Esq., Governor; Stephen Goodyeare, Francis Newman, William Leete and Benjamin Fenn.
The makeup of the court was exactly the same as it had been for Martha Meade’s trial on Oct. 18, 1654.There has been speculation among family historians, including this author, that John’s legal problems within Stamford in the mid-1650s may have been the reason behind he and his brother, Joseph, taking their families to Hempstead, Long Island, soon after the judgment.
By then, John had married Hannah Potter, whose father, William, was among the wealthiest men in Stamford.From Potter, he received some property and it is likely his wife’s father became a source of financial backing for his other land dealings.Whatever the reason was, the brothers lived in Long Island for a couple of years before returning to Connecticut.But when they came back, it was not to Stamford.
John had visited land just west of Stamford along the Connecticut coast on the Long Island Sound.It was called Hogsneck, but it was to become the City of Greenwich.
On Oct. 26, 1660, John purchased “all the lands and housing” in Greenwich previously belonging to Richard Crabb.In turn, he and six others, known as “The Seven Proprietors,” made a request of the General Assembly on Feb. 5, 1664, to separate Greenwich from Stamford, to permit Greenwich to support its own minister and lay out its own lands.
It is believed to have been the first recorded Town Meeting for Greenwich.
The seven were John Mead, Jonathan Renalds, John Hobby, Joseph Ferris, Joshua Knapp, Angell Husted and Jeffrey Ferris.
One of the early rules for the community was that “none shall be admitted as an inhabitant of Greenwich without a certificate testifying to an orderly life, and he must be approved by the minister.”It was enacted on Dec. 1, 1665.
John and Hannah lived in Greenwich the rest of their lives, raising 11 children – John II, Joseph, Hannah, Ebenezer, Jonathan, David, Benjamin, Nathaniel, Samuel, Abigail and Mary.
When John II married Ruth Hardey on Oct. 27, 1681, it was the earliest recorded marriage in Greenwich.In a note of some irony, they were married by Richard law of Stamford, the same man who had battled his father in court 25 years earlier.
Their son, John III, became Greenwich’s first recorded birth on Oct. 7, 1682.
John Mead became a Freeman in 1670 and played an active role in politics as one of the leading citizens of Greenwich.He served three terms as a member of the General Assembly in 1679, 1680, and 1686.he died on Feb. 5, 1699.
Information for this story is taking from the “Records of the Colony or Jurisdiction of New Haven” from the Archives of the State of Connecticut in New Haven.The research was by the editor Lee Meade.
John Mead was born about 1634 in Lydd, Kent, England, and died February 05, 1698/99 in Greenwich, New Haven, CT.He married Hannah Potter about 1657 in Stamford, New Haven, CT, daughter of William Potter and Frances.
Notes for John Mead:
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIOGRAPHY
John Mead, son of William Mead, was born in England, about 1634, and died February 5, 1699.He married about 1657 Hannah Potter, daughter of William Potter.Jon Mead was at one time in Hempstead, Long Island, removed to Old Greenwich, now Sound Beach, in 1660, then became one of the original proprietors of Horse Neck (Greenwich), in 1672.He was a very broad-minded, public-spirited man, and did much for the wellbeing of the little community.He was made a freeman in 1670, and took a prominent part in all the public affairs of the section.He served as a member of the General Assembly in 1679, 1680 and 1686.
Before his death, John Mead I prepared two wills, both dated on March 16, 1696.The first, leaving his real property to his sons, is recorded in the office of the Town Clerk of Greenwich, Conn.The second which makes bequests of personal property to all his children, is recorded in the Probate Records of Fairfield, Conn.The reason for the two wills was that wills devising real property had to be recorded in the town where the land was located, which wills bequeathing personal property were recorded in the probate court having jurisdiction.In those days, it was Fairfield.
FIRST WILL OF JOHN MEAD I, dated March 16, 1696:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I JOHN MEAD, SENIR, of grenwich in ye Collonie of Conecticut for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue & beare towards my naturall Sonn John Mead of ye Towne of grenwich & Colonie aforesd, have giuen & granted & do by these presents fully Clearely and absolutely giue & grant unto my sd Sonn John Mead now deseased for his Sonn John Mead my grandson a sertaine Per-sale of Land and meadow Lying & being in grenwich bounded by ye Land yt I John Mead Senir, bought of John Bowers north & a line drown from ye north east corner of ye Land I bought of Angell Heusted Jr. to a grate rock Lying in ye frunt fence, all ye Lands lying within this Compas with ye house as it is bounded:
Ye frunt of sd Land being Bounded upon thee hyewaye west, the Reare upon ye sea South East.Upon these considerations following I giue & grant fully Clearely and absolutely ye above mentioned lands to him, his heaires & asignes:Imprimis, yt hee fully Confirme yt contract ye was between his father & his Unckle Ebinezer Mead: 2lly yt he pay to his Brothers Jonathan & Nathan Mead when they come to be of eage five pounds to Each of them & to his Sister Elizabeth mead fortie Shilings; Item, I giue & fully grant unto ye aforesd John two acres in ye home lott instead of yt which ye sd John his father, now deseased, had of me in ye Southfeild disposing of yt in ye Southfeild, as I see Convenient.
FURTHER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I John Mead Senir, aforesd for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue & beare toward my Naturall Sonn Joseph Mead of ye Towne of grenwich haue giuen & granted & by these presents do fully Clearely & absolutely giue & grant unto my sd Sonn Joseph Mead his heaires & Asignes a sertain Persale of Land & meadow, lying in Myanos neck esteemed seven acres be it more of Les, as it is Bounded; Item, I giue unto my sd Sonn Joseph Mead, his heaires & asignes, three acres of Land in Stanfford Southfield near ye upper gate be it more or Les, as it is Bounded.
FURTHER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I John Mead Senir, aforesd for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue and beare toward my Naturall Sonn Ebinezer Mead of ye Towne of grenwich aforesd haue giuen & granted & by these presents do fully, Clearely & absolutely giue & grant unto my sd Ebinezer his heaires & asignes a Persale of meadow in ye Hosack meadow, esteemed two acres & an halfe be it more or Les, ye Bounds being known to ye sd Ebinezer.
FURTHER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I John Mead Senir, aforesd for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue and beare toward my Naturall Sonn Jonathan Mead of ye Towne of grenwich aforesd haue giuen & granted by these presents do fully Clearely & absolutely giue & grant unto my sd Sonn Jonathan his heaires & asignes an home lott Layd out to mee at horseneck and al my Lands lying within horse neck feild & & a Persale of Land containing three acres more of Les, Lying at ye South East End of ye Widow Hows Lott.
FURTHER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I John Mead Senir, aforesd for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue and beare toward my Naturall Sonn David Mead of ye Towne of Bedfford now in ye government of New Yorke, haue given *& granted * by these presents do fully Clearely & absolutely giue & grant unto my sd Sonn David Mead his heaires & asignes my whole acomidation Lying & being at Bedfford both Lands & meadows as it was granted to me.
FURTHER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I John Mead Senir, aforesd for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue and beare toward my Naturall Sonn Benjamin Mead of ye Towne of grenwich aforesd, haue giuen & granted & by these presents do fully Clearly * absolutely giue *& grant unto my sd Sonn Benjamen those Persales of Land & meadows hereafter exprest, viz.:give acres of Land at Stickling brock as it is Layd out to mee, and all my Lands & meadow Lying & being at that place Commonly Cauled Coscob, as it is Layd out to mee & ten acres of upland above ye Road aded now to ye five.
FURTHER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I John Mead Senir, aforesd for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue and beare toward my Naturall Sonn Nathaniell Mead of ye Towne of grenwich aforesd haue giuen & granted & by these presents do fully Clearely & absolutely giue & grant unto my sd Sonn Nathaniell Mead, his heaires & asigns an acre & Twentie rods of meadow in ye Southfeild, as it is Bounded; Likewise seven acres of Land Lying at a place cauled Croch; also two Thirds of my Lands, as it shall be Layd out of that Estate in Patrigs List.
FURTHER KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, yt I John Mead Senir, aforesd for ye Love goodwill & affection which I haue and beare toward my Naturall Sonn Samil Mead of ye Town of grenwich haue giuen & granted & by these presents do fully Clearely & absolutely giue * grant unto ye sd Samil Mead, his heaires & asignes all my Houseing with ye Orched:Item, all of my Lands on ye East Side of ye Hyewaye by my House both meadow & Land & Plowing Land, Bounded by ye grate Rock yt lyeth in ye fence of ye Land of my Grand Sonn John Mead & upon a Streight line to ye North East Corner of ye meadow Land I John Mead aforsd Bought of Angell Heusted Jur.:Item, all my Land upon Elizabeth neck, as it is bounded:Item, allmy allotment in Ye Long meadow & all my meadow Lying by James Ferris, as it is Bounded, & ye peace of Land I bought of Clement Buxton Lying in Stanfford Southfeild as it is bounded & my alotment in Stanfford Eastfeild in Shipan, which my father Potters, as it is Bounded; also yt Persale of Land I had of ye ouerseers of my father Potters Estate Lying within Stanfford bounds, frunting by ye Hye waye, by ye South field, as it is Bounded.
FURTHER KNOW yt aforesd housing, Land & meadows I do freely giue to him sd Samil my Sonn, his heaires & asignes as aforesd, also a Persale of Land Lying by Gershom Lockwood, Bounded by ye Hye waye, next west upon ye Land of my Grant Sonn John Mead South East, which Persale of Land was not mentioned before.Provided yt ye sd Samil his heaires and asignes do well & honarably maintaine his mother with a Convenient roome in ye house such a roome as she shall cheuse, & with such other Things as may be Sutable for her Comfortable Subsistence amoungst us. Beginning ye Payment of it after my Desease & Paying five Pounds pr annum till tis Payde.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto sett my hand & Seale this 16 of March 1695-96.
His
John+ Mead
Mark.
SIGNED & SEALED IN PRESENCE OF US:
SALLOMON TREAT,
ZACKARIAH MEAD
These aboue Writen Deads & seuerall Grants of Lands on both sides of this Paper was acnowlidged by ye granter John Mead Senir to bee his act & deed this 24 of March 1697, in Stanfford before mee,
JONATHAN BELL,
Commissioner
SECOND WILL OF JOHN MEAD I, also dated March 16, 1696:
WHEREAS, I, JOHN MEAD SENIR of grenwich in ye Collonie conecticut though at present in reasonable helth, yet being sencable of my bodily weakness and Infirmities of ould eage and not Knowing the daye of my departure out of this word do make this my Last Will & Testament in manner and form following:
First:I Comit my Soul into ye hands of Allmity God hopeing for Saluation from the Riches of His Grace through the Allone merits of Jesus.Also I Comit my body to ye Earth decently to be buried and there to rest unto the Resurection of the Just.And for my wuldly Est. boath Reall and personall, I dispose of it as followeth:
Imprimis:All my just debts and funeral Charges being paid by my wife whom I make my Sole Executrix of my will and I do will and bequeath unto m y Eldest Sonn John Mead the Just Sum of five Shillings; besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
2lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my Sonn Joseph Mead ye Just sum of five Shilings besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
3lly: My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my Sonn Ebinezer Mead ye Just sum of five Shilings besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
4lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my Sonn Johnathan Mead ye Just sum of five Shilings besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
5lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my Sonn Dauid Mead ye Just sum of five Shilings besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
6lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my Sonn Benjamen Mead ye Just sum of five Shilings besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
7lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my Sonn Nathaniell Mead ye Just sum of five Shilings besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
8lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my Sonn Sam’ll Mead ye Just sum of five Shilings besides what I haue alredy Giuen him to be paid by my Executrix.
9lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my daughter Hannah Scoful ye full & Just sum of five Shilings to be paid by my Executrix.
10lly:9lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my daughter Abagaile ye Just sum of five Shilings to be paid by my Executrix.
11lly:9lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my daughter Mary ye Just sum of five Shilings to be paid by my Executrix.
12:9lly:My will is and I do will and bequeath unto my dear and loueing Hannah Mead all my Estate Reall and Personall which I haue not disposed of to my Children Either by Will or gifts.She paying the seuerall Legacies as before Expressed for her Comfortable Subsistanc in this world and to be wholly at her disposal to distribute.
Lastly:My will is that my Sonns Joseph, Ebinezer, and Benjamen be ouerseers to se yt this my Last Will & Testament be fully & Carefully performed to see yt there mother be provided for.
IN CONFERMATION yt this is my Last Will & Testament, I haue hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 16 of March, 1695-96.
his
JOHN + MEAD
mark
SIGNED & SEALED IN PRESENCE OF US:
SALLOMON TREAT
ZACKARIAH MEAD.
The aboue writen Will was acnolidged by John Mead Senir, to bee his own free act & deed this 24th March, 1697, in Stanfford before me.
JOHNATHAN BELL
Commissioner.
More About John Mead:
Buried February 1696/99, Greenwich, New Haven, CT
Notes for Hannah Potter:
Her father owned Shippan Point, one of the most valuable pieces of land in Stamford.They may have come to the U.S. aboard the Elizabeth.
More About Hannah Potter:
Buried Abt. 1698, Greenwich, New Haven, CT
This document was typed verbatim from the document “Descendants of John Mead” given to me by Robert Baron Mead.There is no compiler’s name on the document, but I believe Robert Baron Mead said that it was written by a Chris Mead.Thank you to whoever found and preserved this wonderful text.