speculative
From Howard:
Bartholomew 1
Bartholomew usually is said to be the eldest son of Thomas. This is based, I suspect, that it was Bartholomew who took charge of lands in RhodeIsland following the death of Thomas (O'Callaghan-c, p. 155.) Also, the records of births and deaths of the children of Bartholomew and brotherThomas 5 make it apparent that Bartholomew was older than Thomas. However, if brother John 4 has his correct age inscribed on his tombstone, then hecould be the eldest son of Thomas.
Bartholomew may not have been able to write. On 13 June, 1662, he witnessed an indenture and made his mark - B (ibid., p. 172.) However, in thosetimes, a mark on a document was considered more legal than a signature (Woodford, personal commmunication.)
According to DTA, Bartholomew was born c. 1626; Wolf (p. 52) puts his birth in 1632; Voress says c. 1620. None of the dates are documented.
Our first documented date for Bartholomew is 07 February, 1650 when he was charged 0:10 guilders as his share towards keeping the town hall heated(Gravesend, 1:41.) Later that year, he owed 9:10 (guilders-stivers?) to the estate of John Ruckman (ibid., p. 69.) An undated entry (ibid., p. 70)but probably 1650 says "Bartholomew Aplegte" paid 1:0 (guilder?) to common charges of the town. These suggest he was over 21 years of age in 1650thus ruling out the birth date of Wolf.
According to Clemens (p. 24,) he married Hannah Patrick in June, 1650. Other records (Gravesend, 1:49) put the marriage in October of that year.Frost-b (p. 114) traces her lineage. Ann Patrick was the daughter of Anna Van Beyerem who married first, Daniel Patrick, and secondly, Tobias Feake.Anna Van Beyerem had four children by Patrick. Daughter Hannah, married Bartholomew who was living in Gravesend. After the death of hismother-in-law, Bartholomew, on 24 June, 1662, sued to obtain a share of her estate. On 14 November, 1662, the court ruled in his favor(O1Callaghan-b, p. 44.)
Bartholomew had a busy year in 1650. He, along with William Wilkins, completed a tide mill on Stome Kill, near the 1800 site of Garretsen's Mill.The Kill was the boundary between Gravesend and New Utricht in 1686 (Thompson, 3:121.) Now the site is Marine Park - Avenue V off Burnett Street(Ieradi, p. 152.) Bergen-a (p. 390), putting no date on his statement, says that William Wilkins was a partner of Bartholomew in a mill atGravesend. As a result of a dispute, they let the mill "get in disorder." The town was directed by the Court of Sessions to repair and use the milluntil the cost of repairs was recovered.
On 09 January, 1651, an inventory of the estate of John Ruckman (will made 02 May, 1650) included a debt of "Barthollm Aplegate" (Gravesend, 1:69.)
The Gravesend court, on 05 May, 1652, took notice of "rumors and repourts from one neighbour to another by some lighte and vane psoms whose coursehath tended to much trouble both in towne and courte haveing noe due proofe or testimonie for ye same." To stop this, a fine of 50 guilders would belevied on those "bringing suit without due and pregnant proofe." Barthollmew Aplegatt, William Musgove and Ambrose London were cited as being guiltyand told any further suits would result in "ipso factor payments" (Gravesend, 1:120.)
Bergen-a records several land deals by Bartholomew: on 02 October, 1653, he sold land in Gravesend to Claus Poulis (p. 229) but in 1657, he stillowned eight morgans of land in the town (p. 389.) On 22 March, 1661, Bartholomew and William Goulding (brother of sister-in-law, Avis) exchangedfour-acre plots in Gravesend (Lewis, 3:3.) On 31 March, 1661, he exchanged land with both John Williams and John Hendrick. The same source says, on10 August, 1667, he bought from Matthew Whitman, (Bergen-b says Nathan, p. 387) an English tailor, lot 62, that was Thomas Monell's.
Bartholomew did more than buy, sell and trade land during that period. According to Fernow-a (p. 536) he tried to incite a revolution against theDutch on 09 October, 1663. His-tory tells us he did not succeed. The cause of the dispute was the English in Gravesend tried to change the waymagistrates were elected in an effort to secure a plurality (Doyle, p. 101.) The complete report of Fernow-a is given in Appendix.
Bartholomew was not in court as often as his father but occasionally he was a defendant. On 15 June, 1670, Richard Stillwell sued him for debtincurred at Gravesend. Stillwell won the case (Lewis, 3:3.)
An unpleasant episode occurred on the first Wednesday of October, 1670. Bar-tholomew filed suit against William Wilkins for suspicion of adultery.The case was bound over to the Assizes by the Court of Sessions at Gravesend (Christoph, p. 202.) The case was heard in the Court of Assizes for theColony of New York on 07 October, 1670. Wilkins was found guilty of "suspicion of illicit intercourse with another's wife." He was fined £20:one-half went to the King and one-half to Bartholomew who was to apply it to the relief of his wife at his "perill" (Christoph and Christoph-b, p.115.) Was there a link between the above and an order signed 25 August, 1670 by Governor Nicolls? In the order, he told the Constable at Breucklyn"to apprehend the wife of Bartholomew Applegate" and "cause her to be conveyed from constable to constable till she be brought to Gravesend." Theconstable there was instructed "to take care that she be not permitted to goe up and down disturbing the Country" (Christoph and Christoph-a, p. 369.)
An odd order, dated between 15 April and 23 April, 1671, restored "maintenance" to "Bartholomew Applegate's child, John" (Christoph and Christoph-a,p. 411.)
James Hubbard filed a suit against Bartholomew, brother Thomas 5 and Thomas Whitlock in the New York Court of Assizes on 05 October, 1671. Theconstable and overseers of Gravesend joined in presenting testimony against the three. Also testifying were Captain William Wilkins, Francis deBruyne, John Askew, John Dawsen, Barbary Johnson, Peter Simpson, John Hubbard, Elizabeth Force and Elyas Dawes. The suit was for cutting down millwheels. It was proved that the "axe that cutt the mill did fitt the chopps and notches in the timber" and belonged to Bartholomew. Bartholomewpleaded that "hee was sick when the mill was cutt, neither did hee lend the axe to anyone, but saith hee hath a distracted wife, and knows not ifshee lent it." Bartholomew and Whitlock were found guilty but Thomas was acquitted. The verdict was that the guilty ones had to pay all costs - 30pounds to Hubbard and 10 pounds as "Fine to his majestie for their great Misdemenor." They were also bound to good behavior (Christoph andChristoph-b, p. 119.)
A strange episode occurred the next month. The bare facts are contained in a letter dated 06 November, 1671 (Lewis, 3:3:)
Whereas the Governour was pleased to order Wm. Wilkins to pay ten pounds toward the release of Hannah Apple-gate and her child, this shewth thatThos. Whitlock received of Mr. Dela-vall five pounds of the aforesaid somme, of wch the said Thomas delivered five pounds to the constable andoverseers, of Gravesend, in red cloth," Gravesend records as per T.G. Bergen, Esq.
Doubtless she and her child had been taken prisoners by the Indians and this was the ransom demanded.
In a history of the Applegate Family (Weeks-a, 1:230,) the idea is advanced that hostility between the Dutch and English settlers on Long Islandcaused the local Indians to believe they could curry favor with Dutch authorities by kidnapping the wife on one of the chief English spokesman. Thismay be true but there are no data to support it. Certainly, there was hostility between the two nationalities on Long Island. The article goes on tocharacterize Hannah as "a beautiful woman, and a loving wife and a communicant of the English church on Long Island."
The combination of both unfriendly neighbors and hostile Indians may have convinced Bartholomew to seek more congenial pastures. On 08 March, 1674,according to 0'Cal-laghan-a (pp. 18, 19, 23,) Bartholomew Applegadt and Co. were given permission to purchase land at Middletown, New Jersey fromthe Indians. Shortly thereafter, 18 April, 1674, a caveat was entered saying that land had already been granted. The land in question was two Dutchmiles from the village of Middletown and was to be used to settle six to eight families.
A fuller version of the sale can be found in Whitehead (1:142.) According to him, on 08 May, 1674 (note the difference of a month) BartholomewApplegadt, Thomas Appelgadt and Richard Sadler requested permission to purchase land from the Indians. The land was situated about two leagues from"Middle Towne" near the "Nevesings" and was enough for six to eight families. Permission was given provided that a patent was obtained and the landwas settled within two years. The land, according to Ellis (p. 207), was on Raritan Bay and now is called "Applegate's Landing."
According to family tradition, the purchase of land from the Indians also included "good will." Animals from other families were stolen while thoseof the Applegates were unmolested (Harriet Mount, 5A1C1B.)
On 18 April, 1674, John Bowne and Richard Hartshoorn, both of Middletown, requested the petition be annulled since they already had title to theland. The Council ordered Bowne and Hartshoorn to prove they did indeed own the land. Either they failed to do so or, since the English took overcontrol from the Dutch at this time, the new rulers may have favored the Applegates. The land (or some part of it) has been further identified asbeing of 200 acres located at the falls of the Shrewsbury (now Tinton Falls.) On a map drawn 1676, at the Falls, the mill and house of Applegate areshown. The map can be obtained from either Rutgers University or the Monmouth County Historical Society. A portion of it is reproduced here (Map II10.
Tinton Falls was the scene of a locally famous skirmish during the Revolutionary War:
Of all the villages in eastern Monmouth county, none supported the Revolution as stanchly as Tinton Falls. "The Falls" was home to many of thearea's most radical patriots, housed Continental soldiers and headquartered the local militia. Yet Tinton Falls was also vulnerable -its locationnear the shore and British-held Sandy Hook made the village an easy target for Tory Raiders, who punished the village twice in the spring of 1779.
On April 25, a large raiding party 700 hundred strong, landed at Red Bank and marched for Tin-ton Falls with the mission of capturing a Con Tinentalregiment stationed there, However the alerted Continentals retreated to Colts Neck without offering resistance. Deprived of battle, the Toriesrazed the Falls instead. Benjamin White, a store clerk at the falls recalled the the Tories as being,"So enraged that they lost their prey, theyset fire to the houses, and burned and plundered many of them on their return ...They seemed like wild or mad men." Before Loyalists pulled back,they killed ten And captured 22 Of the militiamen who were skirmished with the raiders throughout the day. Col. Benjamin Ford, the Continentalcommander who abanded the village, wrote of the raiders, "not leaving a single pane of glass in any of the windows belonging to the people there,committing every wanton act, plundering and destroying all the furniture they could."
Six weeks later, on June 9, a fifty man raiding party attacked the Falls before dawn. Guided by Monmouth Tories, the raiders surrounded the housesof five militia officers, including Col. Daniel Hendrickson and Lt. Col. Aucke Wikoff the shore area's two highest ranking officers and capturedeach of them. The outnumbered militia pursued, "with more spirit than providence" according to one report, and fought a fierce one-hour battle withthe raiders near Rumson. In the battle, the patriots swore that they would not grant quarter;and the Tories fought dirty, using their bound hostagesas human shields during the battle. Lacking bayonets the militia retreated when the Tories charged. The Tories made off with most of their hostages,but because of the hard surf they were unable to collect much of their plunder or the wounded militia men left on the beach. Two militia officerswere killed in the battle, in addition to a dozen other casualties.
Tinton falls became a ghost town after the raids. On June 15, Governor William Livingston sent Chief Justice Robert Morris to the falls to rally thevillage. Morris reported the locals were "quiting their habitations observing that if they must starve, they had rather do it in the countrysidethan in the British jail." Morris concluded that because the patriot leaders were captured or dead, his mission would fail unless the Governor senttroops, "they are farmers and mechanics in the middling circunstances, I have little hopes of continuing long without assistance." The troop neverarrived and the Falls were abanded for several months.(From: "They Seemed Like Wild or Mad Men:" The Destruction of Tinton Falls, Michael S.Adelberg. Monmouth County Historical Association, Summer 1997.)
There is more to the challenge of Bowne and Hartshoorn against the Applegates than meets the eye (See paragraph above Tinton Falls.). Bad bloodgenerated at this time lasted several years. Holland first claimed ownership of New Jersey based on Henry Hudson's discovery. Dutch ownership cameto an end when Colonel Richard Nicolls defeated them in battle. Nicolls wore several hats - one of which was Deputy Governor of New Jersey. Nicollsgave very generous terms to induce newcomers to settle there. As a result, there was large immigration from Rhode Island, Massachusetts and NewYork. On 08 April, 1665, what is now all of Monmouth and parts of Middlesex and Ocean counties were given to 12 patentees - the celebrated (at leastlocally) Monmouth Patent. The patentees promised to respect the liberal terms of Nicolls as they disposed of land. However, the Duke of York, whoNicolls represented, sold New Jersey to Lord Berkely and Sir George Carteret. Nicolls was replaced by George Carteret. He promptly laid down newrules one of which required the settlers to pay rent.
Richard Sadler was a ringleader in resisting the new orders. Bartholomew, never one to shirk controversy, with the able assistant to hisbrother-in-law (Richard), attacked the sheriff and "brake his head," took his swords, "brake them away and kept to the value of five pounds." Bowneand Hartshorne were firmly on the side of the new governor and testified against Sadler and Bartholomew (Weeks-a, 1:237.)
A "Bartholomew Aplegate" owed a "Nathl Davenport" of New York one pound on 07 November, 1675 (Massachusetts Archives, 16:136.)
At a meeting of the Council of the proprietors of the Province of East New Jersey, on Friday, 10 July, 1685, Col. Lewis Morris requestedconfirmation of a purchase of "about 200 acres" from Bartholomew Applegate (Board of Proprietors, 1:75-77.)
Stillwell-a (2:399) in "warrants for Survey, Monmouth County" says Colonel Lewis Morris surveyed 500 acres and meadow on 15 August, 1685 of which200 acres were in the "right of Bartholomew Applegate." The following year, 16 September, 1686, Morris paid the quit rent on the property (ibid., p.375.)
There is some evidence that Bartholomew left Gravesend shortly after receiving the land in New Jersey. In 1675, a John Rawles representedBartholomew at Gravesend in a drawing for land (Lewis, 3:3.)
While most agree he left Gravesend sometime after 1674, not everyone agrees as to where he went:
Bartholomew "named in Freehold records in 1674 is not probable that he settled there" (Salter, p. iv) "went to Middlesex County, New Jersey"(Hughes, p.60)
3. "may have gone to New England to live or to Monmouth County" (Lewis, 3:3; Stillwell-a, 3:1)
4. "located in Dover Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey" (Wolf, p. 52)
5. "removed from Gravesend to either Milford, Connecticut or to Middletown, New Jersey" (Virkus-b, p. 69) I have found but one reference linking aBartholomew to Milford. Someone by that name, at some unknown date, was complained of for selling liquor (Savage, 1:60.) I doubt if it was thisBartholomew due to age; I am assigning the record to Bartholomew 1G.
A map of Shrewsbury, made in 1676, shows "Appellgate mill and house" on the Shrewsbury River at the Falls. This could be Bartholomew's house andmill since he had a tide mill on Long Island. However, in generation III, the mill is identified as a "full and grist mill" which could indicatethat Thomas 5 was also involved in at least the mill and possibly the house. I discuss the reasoning for this under Thomas 5.
On 16 August, 1677, Thomas and Bartholomew Applgate filed suit against the inhabitants of Shrewsbury for nonperformance of a written agreement madeby the town clerk on behalf of the citizens (Middlesex Records, A:75, 77-78.) The case was to be heard on 04 September at the Court of Sessions.Thomas appeared but Bartholomew did not. The case was "non-suited" but Thomas was allowed to refile the suit without Bartholomew as a plaintiff. Thereason for the nonsusit is given in Appendix. The grain mill was damaged (inoperable?) due to Lewis Morris building an iron works up river anddiverting the river for his own use. Bartholomew settled his claim for two hundred acres of land and £25. Thomas did not settle. I do not know howThomas made out. The settlement was dated 30 January, 1682/3.
Bsrtholomew must have left Shrewsbury soon after the settlement. "Barthollmew Aplegate" was in Sussex County, Delaware and was cited as delinquentin working on the highway on 10 December, 1684 (Turner, p. 116.)
On 12 May, 1685, Barthollmew Aplegate was summoned for a witness in Sussex County, Delaware. The defendants did not show so the case was continued(Horle, 1:337.) In June, 1685 - same court, same place - the defendants did not show again (Horle, 1:346.)
On 02 October, 1685, Bartholomew was engaged in the first of a long series of suits against Henry Bomen (Ibid, 1:616.) In this one, Bartholomew saidBomen owed him "cattle & Sows & piggs." The suit was continued. In the 05-07 February, 1689 term, Boman said that while he may owe the livestock, hewas not obligated to deliver it/them/those to where the plaintiff wanted. John Bellamy swore he heard Boman say he "was indebted for sd Cattle,Coult & sowes & piggs to the deft." A William Emet swore the same. "Upon wch the deft confesseth judgmt according to declaration" (ibid, 1:630.)
In the same term (ibid, 1:630,) Bartholomew "declareth that the deft (Boman) standeth justly indebted unto him two hundred acors of Land & FourtyAcors of medoe etc in Sloughter Neck." Boman said it was "but a breach of covenant & therefore craved a nonsuit." The court agreed and gaveBartholomew liberty to "mend his declaration" and referred the matter to the next court. In the March term (ibid, 1:642,) Bartholomew "declares fortwo hundred acors of land & fourty acors of meadoe fresh and sault as it is expressed in Certain Artickles of agreement or covenant made betwext thepltf & deft." Boman said he wanted to see the "Certain Artickles." The Court agreed and the case was continued.
In the April-May term (ibid, 1:657,) Bartholomew said "the deft had given his bill of saile for to the pltf in New England." First, Boman saidthere was no bill of sale; Bartholomew said "Here it is." Second, Boman said prove it was his signature; Bartholomew produced two witnesses.Third, Boman said he offered Bartholomew the land but Bartholomew said it was "barran land" and would not accept it. He wanted the land located at"three Runes where the pltf was then building a water mill." Boman said he offered Bartholomew that land but he would not accept it. Bartholomewsaid the land was not offered free but had rent due on it and he would not pay the rent. The jury decided for Boman; Bartholomew said he wouldappeal.
In the same term (ibid, 1:663,) Boman deposited £16 to the court. I do not know why since he won. But - on the same day, Boman "delivered a deed ofsaile for 600 hundred acors of land bought of Wm Spencer Jun to the sherr for redeeming his body out of prison being taken in execution att the suitof Bartholomew Applegate." Two pages later in the same term (ibid, 1:665,) both men withdrew all suits actions, appeals, judgements and executionsthat "are now or heretofore have been made." One page later, same term, Boman said he owed Bartholomew £2 9 but Bartholomew had to "alow him wt hehath paid out of one moiety" - the £16? For the rest of what Boman owed (he owed? he won!) Boman promised to give a bill payable "att Critmas next"and a horse.
Bartholomew must have left Delaware shortly before the law suits. He does not appear in the Delaware papers of the Dutch period (1648-1664) not inthe English papers of 1664-1682 (Gehring, 2000.) It has not been possible to find any further record of him (Malone, 1997; Virdin & Hall, 1998;Hall, 1998; Virdin, 1994.)
Previously, I have identified Richard Sadler as a brother-in-law of Bartholomew. The Monmouth Inquirer (1925) identifies Sadler as abrother-in-law. This is repeated by Wolf (1972.) There are no data to substantiate the statements. However, several persons, in reviewing thismanuscript have stated they believed Bartholomew was married twice. Son Thomas 1E may have been from Miss Sadler - after becoming Mrs. Applegate maywe hope?
Furman (personal communication) believes another son, John, also resulted from this marriage. This son died in Oyster Bay c. 1718. Furman says thereis a will dated/proved in 1718 of this John. I have been unable to locate the will. Life gets complicated. There is a John 1A, son of Bartholomew(via Hannah?) who also lived in Oyster Bay. A John in Oyster Bay is well documented - but which John? Woodford, just prior to her longhospitalization and death, wrote she had located an unknown John and much data in New York at this time period. Her illness and death prevented mefrom gathering any more information.
Bartholomew probably died in 1690s (Voress.) The issue of Bartholomew and Hannah are in dispute: Thomas and Daniel (MEA); Daniel, John, Hannah, Maryand perhaps others (Lewis, 3:3; Wolf, p. 52; Stillwell-a, 3:1); Jacob, Ebenezer, William, Sarah, Daniel, Bartholomew and John (DTA); John 1A, HannahIB, Mary 1C, and Daniel ID, (Voress.) Jacob is also listed by the International Genealogical Index 3.03, North America. Miller (p. 63) saysBartholomew had thirteen sons. None of those listing the children give any documentation. I have followed Voress but added sons Thomas IE (GravesendRecords,) Samuel IF (Monmouth Court of Sessions Records) and Bartholomew 1G (Monmouth County Historical Association.) My numbering does not relateto their births. Hornor (1931) also lists Thomas.APPENDIX
Bartholomew 1 Incites An Uprising Fernow-a, p. 536
Thursday, October 9, 1663 Present, The Director General Petrus Stuyvescant, the Councillors de Sille and de Decker and the Burgomasters of this city.
Whereas last night a letter, written at Middleburgh upon Long Island, informed us, that a party of mutineers had again taken up arms and wasstirring there, to reduce that and other villages on Long Island for the Colony of Hartford, which caused no little trouble to some well affectedpeople, they being threatened every day with the loss of their property, if they do not also take up arms against the Dutch.
Therefore, it is resolved that in order to prevent such mis chief, that Captain Thomas Wilier and Mr. John Lawrence shall be requested andcommissioned to preceed with Secretary Van Ruayven to said villages and to inquire of the magistrates, by whose authority and commission theserebels presume to act, who were the ringleaders and what their meaning and intentions are. They shall report to us, how and by what means theserebels may be stopped and resisted. To-day appeared at Fort Amsterdam Jan van Cleef, who reported that he was sent by the inhabitants of New Utrechton Long Island to inform the Director General and Council that about 300 Englishmen have gathered at Jamaica, also called Rustdorp, who intend tocome to the other villages, Dutch as well as English, and to summon them. He says also, that the son of Mr. Stillwell went there yesterday in theforenoon, to make peace as they say, between these Englishmen and his father about the arrest of James Christy.
Eight mounted and well-armed men came yesterday morning to Jamaica, to wit, Bartholomeus Appelgaet, Charles Morgan, R. Nainght, Thomas Whitlock,James Hubbard, William Goddent, Goetman Ren and N. N. who on starting had called out to some in New Utrecht people, happening to be at Gravesend,"How is it now? Will ye be the King's or the State's men" and they rode off.
An Englishman came yesterday to New Utrecht, who had hired two oxen to somebody there and now took them away, saying he knew they would be attackedby some English people, and if they resisted, the English would try to ruin them completely. He came therefore for his oxen because he did not wishto suffer loss.This report was made by Jan van Cleeft in the presence of the Director General, the Fiscal and the two Burgermasters of this city, at FortAmsterdam, the sixth of November 1663.
Bartholomew Settles Suit Against Shrowsbury
To All Persons to whom these presents shall come Know Yee That whereas Bartholomous Applegate Now of the Towne of Shrowsbury in Now East JerseyWheelwright - having formerly made a contract with the Inhabitants of the Towne of Shrowsbury aforesaid about setting up a corn mill to serve thesaid Towne And that in pursuance of the said Contract I did build a mill for the use aforesaid, But afterward being deposed of the Benofitt thatmight devise to me from my Mill by reason the River was made use of by the Ironworks belonging to Col. Lewis Morris, by which means my Mill becameunservicable to me, Nevertheless the Towne aforesaid considering the great loss and damages I sustained by being deposed of the benofitt of my Millwas pleased to give their consent that I should have a share of land within the said Towneship In order whereunto the Survayer General Robert Laparydid Survey & lay for me a share of land in the Towne of Shrowsbury aforesaid, Bounded on the SEast by the land of the said Col. Lewis Morris Nwestby the falls river, east of the land of Samuel Woothcott and south by a path that leads to Ephrim Wardalls Mill & so to Long Branch which said tractof land Bounded as aforesaid and containing about two hundred acres, be it more or less And in consideration of the sum of twenty pounds to me inhand paid the receipt whereof is hereby acknowldge I have and doe by these presents Bargain sell alianate convey & confirm unto the said Col LewisMorris his heirs, executors administrators & assigns all that my fore mentioned Plantation situate lying and being in the Bound of the Towne ofShrowsbery aforesaid, To him the said Col. Lewis Morris and for his use forever and farther promise to make good & warrant the said sale against allper-sonl whatsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand and seal this 30 Day of January 1682/3
Bartholomous His mark ApplegateLand under tillage 8 morgens
Participates in the attempted uprising against the Dutch
26. John Applegate
John 1A (Son of Bartholomew 1; Grandson of Thomas)
Voress says he was born c. 1650. According to town records, a John Appellgate witnessed a sale of land in Oyster Bay on 29 January, 1678 (Cox, p.587.) This is our first authentic record. He was given land in Oyster Bay, by the town authorities, on 27 March, 1683. John received "a hous lott ofthree Accars" which formerly belonged to John Frost, "ten Accars of land in ye comans" and "one Acar of ye Cove Swomp if it can be allowed". He wasgiven "fre privilidge for graseing and timber in the towne comans." In the deeds, he was referred to as "John Apellgatte" (Cox, p. 263.)
On 19 February, 1684, according to Cox (p. 314,) a Thomas Townsend "for divers good considerations" sold John eight acres at "ye old plantinn fieldand a piece of swomp and upland at ye head of ye swomp." This land of John's was later used as a boundary. On 06 January, 1685, "Suscaneman aliasRunasuch, Cherhegen alias Quarapin and Samos sold to Robert Townsend, son of Henry Townsend, Sr. land known as Cedar Swamp "... bounded on the southby John Applegate's land." The deed was entered 21 April, 1685 (Index, Bl:58.)
John signed on back of the original deed that recorded the first purchase of land for Oyster Bay from the Indians. The codicil, dated 06 March,1685, stated that those signing on back had the same rights and privileges as signers on front (Cox, p. 333.) Later, John purchased another piece ofland from the Indians. On 26 March, 1685, Quarapin, Suscanema and Samous (same Indians - different spelling) sold a piece of Cedar Swamp (about 60acres) to John for £12. The land adjoined that of Robert and James Townsend (Cox, p. 509.)
A John Appelgat witnessed the division of the estate of Peter Wright, Sr. on 06 October, 1685 (Cox, p. 316.) Sometime in 1685, John was listed as afreeholder in Oyster Bay (Mere-Smith, p. 89.)
John apparently sold some of his land on some unknown date. A James Blevin recorded the sale of all his land in Oyster Bay on 14 January, 1687except "that he bought of John Applegate" (Cox, p. 457.)
John made his will on 12 January, 1687 (Records, County Clerk at Jamaica. A:33; Abstracts, Bl:16.) It was proven 11 November, 1688. Stillwell-a(3:4) is in error in saying it was proven 24 October, 1688. However, he may be right in saying John died around 22 May, 1688.
His will (Appendix) gave one third to brother Daniel ID, one third to sister Hannah and one third to sister Mary. Daniel was executor; witnesseswere John Taylor, Daniel Weeks and Anthony Gleam.
Stillwell says the two women released Daniel from his duties the same day John died. This would imply they were gathered around the death bed inOyster Bay. This does not seem likely. Moreover, there is documentary evidence the release did not happen until 25 May, 1688 (See Daniel ID.)Moreover, on 10 November, 1688, "Daniel Applegate of East Jersey of Monmouth County" sold both the land John purchased from the Indians and the landgiven him by the city to a Samuel Dickinson (Cox, p. 509-511.) On the same day, in another deed, "Daniel Applegate of Shrewsbury of East Jersey ...sole executor" sold to Isaac Doughty of Kittleworth, land which James Townsend sold to John on 14 October, 1685 (Cox, p. 515.)
A link between the Forman/Furman family and the Applegate family was established on 23 June, 1690. Thomas Forman of Jerusalem in East New Jersey,sold to Thomas Young, land that was first John Frost's and then John Applegate's (Cox, p. 577.)
Apparently, John never married.Appendix
Will of John 1A Abstracts of Wills, Bl:16I John Applegate of Oyster Bay on Long Island in Queens County being sick and weak in body but of perfect memory praised be God for the same
First and principally I rebuke, renounce frustrate and make void all wills by me formerely made and do make & ordain this my last will andtestatment in manner for me following First and principally I bequeath my soul to Almighty God which gave it to me and my body to the earth fromwhence it was taken to be buried in such Christian manner as my executor hereafter named shall think fit and convenient and hope by the preciousdeath and passion of Christ Jesus my ever blessed Savior and Redeemer to be saved and receive full pardon for my sins and to such worldy estate asthe Lord in mercy hath lent me shall be bequeathed and employed as by my will expressed I give unto my brother Daniel Applegate the 1/3 of my land.Item I give unto my eldest sister Hannah Applegate the other third part or second third of my land. Item I give to my youngest sister Mary Applegatethe other third of my land to be divided equally amoungst them.
Item two cows and two calves which are in the hands of James Townsend of Oyster Bay to be equally divided between my brother and two sisters and forwhat cows I have in the hands of James Townsend is to be satisfied for funeral expenses and I do appoint my brother Daniel Applegate my lawfulexecutor and that he shall pay the other two thirds of the land and cattle within nine months after the death hereof to the true performance hereof
His Mark John Applegate Witnesses were John Taylor, Daniel Weeks and Anthony Gleam