Thomas Applegate

Other Events:

• Residence: 1635, Massachusetts, USA

Notes:

In contrast to Clement, Edward, George and James, there are many records of Thomas. Our earliest authentic record is the granting of a license to run a ferry between present day Weymouth (nee Wassaguscus) and Braintree (nee Wolliston) on 02 September, 1635 (Mary—“‘for which he was to have 1d. for every person, & ld. A horse’”—ED) (Shurtleff, 1:156; Map 1 3.) However, six months later (03 March, 1636) the same record (p. 165) tells us that Thomas was discharged from keeping the ferry and was replaced by Henry Kingman. An early map of Wassagscus (Map 1 4) makes one wonder the need for a ferry.
The earliest reference to Thomas being in the New World, but on an ill defined date, is in Nash b, p. 91:
“In March of the next year (1636) Thomas Applegate also a prior settler (prior to the Hull Company of 1635,) was re¬moved from his position as ferry keeper and Henry Kingman, one of the new comers appointed to succeed him. (Material in brackets added).”
Anderson, et al. (p. 72, 1999) put Thomas' entry to the New World in 1635. This is based, I believe, on that is the year in which he obtained a ferry license. I believe that is wrong. First, he was here prior to the Hull company who arrived in 1635. (The Hull company arrived in the spring of 1635, indicating the fact that they left England about as soon as they could for that year. Thomas could have arrived earlier in the year, but certainly not by very much, certainly not early enough to learn about big coastal canoes, coastal currents, and whether or not a ferry of this type was a decent investment. He almost certainly had to be here in 1634.—ED) True, he could have come one day earlier than they did and still come in 1635. It seems to me, however, that Thomas had to be here earlier to get a ferry license in 1635. Later activities of Thomas show him to be canny in business. Surely, he took time to assess the local situation and find the best business to give a good return. Secondly, granting a license was up to the courts in which then, as now, a little political pressure helped which took time and the cultivation of connections. Finally, he had to get the money to start up. Unless he secreted money in his luggage, this too would take time.
There is evidence that although Thomas had his license withdrawn, he retained control of the ferry. On 04 December, 1638, William Blanton was enjoined to appear to the next court at Newe Towne (now Cambridge, Massachusetts) with all the men that were in a canoe with him and with Aplegate, who owned the canoe out of which the three persons were drowned. It was ordered that no canoe should be used as a ferry upon paine of 5s nor no canoe to be made in our jurisdiction before the next Generall Court upon pain of 10s (paraphrased) (Shurtleff, 1:246.)At the next court, 05 March, 1639, Willi Blanton, Willi Potter, Rob't Thorpe, Henry Neal, John Fitch, and Thomas Aplegate, appearing, were discharged, with an admonition not to adventure too many into any boat (Shurtleff, 1:249.)Thomas, besides being admonished, also lost his canoe. It was staved by court order i.e., bottom knocked out (Shurtleff, 1:246.)
John Stillwell Applegate, a judge from Red Bank, New Jersey, in a letter to his father dated 06 December, 1896 said:
“It was an ancient law that the instrument which caused the death of a person should be forfeited to the king, to be applied to pius uses. Blackstone says that in the blind days of popery such forfeitures de¬signed as an expiation for the souls of of those snatched away by sudden death. Hence the name "Deoland," given to God. But the true reason for such forfeitures in the latter days seems to have been, that the owner of the instrument should be deprived of it as a punishment for their negligence (MEA, film 973).”
The same court, that ordered the canoe staved, also ordered Thomas to be given 29 shillings for his canoe, provided he returned in good condition arms he had borrowed (Shurtleff, 1:249.) The reason for borrowing the arms is not given.
The canoe was a necessity to transport people and goods, via water, between the two settlements of Weymouth and Braintree. An account written in 1634 says "three miles to the north of this (Wessagyscus) is Mount Walleston ... A second inconvenience is, that boats cannot come in at low water, nor ships near the shore" (Young, p. 395.)
In 1641, testimony by George Allen, son of the George Allen who later purchased the land of Thomas, also connects Thomas with a boat:
“Thomas Rawlins of Weymouth in New England fisherman aged about 33. yeares sworne upon his oath that in or about Oct last he heard John King of Weymouth seaman undertake unto Thomas Applegate of Weymouth planter to goe in his boate as Master thereof if an other man could be gotten by either of them to goe with him the said John King to help manage the said boate and they agreed together that the said John King should have his owne parte of the fishe taken by himself in the sd boat freight free & that the said Thomas Apple¬gate should have the 4th penny of freight of goods carryed in the said boate and that if the boate or any goods therein should be miscarryed cast away or hurt by ill ordering or laying of the said boate the said John King should beare the dam¬mage thereof and their words & agreement were to this purpose.
George Allen of Weymouth in New England planter aged about twenty one yeares sworne saith upon his oath that about the begining of November last one day late wthnnight he was present in the house of John King of Weymouth seaman Master of Thomas Applegates boate & there heard the said John King say to William Newland that he would not stand to the adventure of the goods of the said William Newland laden in the said boate if that one hogshead of salt more of his were put into the same boate, whereto the said Newland answered that not withstanding he would have the said hogshead put into the said boate that night & if the boate were overladen in the morning some of the said goods might be again taken taken out therof or words to that purpose and hereupon this deponent wth others did help put in the said hogshead that night in¬to the said boate & in the next morning the boate did not rise but sunke to that side where the said hogshead lay and this deponent knoweth that the said boate did rise well enough one tyde when the rest of the said goods besides the said hogshead were in it (Hale, pp. 392, 393.)”
In a footnote to the above, it is observed that in 1636 Thomas was discharged from keeping the ferry but from later entries, it appeared that Thomas continued until 1638 as owner of the ferry although William Blanten may have actually managed the ferry.
Just one day after the sinking, Newland filed suit against Thomas for eight pounds and won. George Allen testified it was Newland's salt that had been in Thomas' boat and therefore Newland was entitled to damages (Chamberlain, 4:443.)
The ferry and the Allen family were connected later. George Allen, the purchaser of Thomas' land, came to Weymouth with the Hulls in April 1635. One of his sons, John, was granted land "in the plaine" prior to 1643. This land had originally been given to Thomas (Chamberlain, 3:11.) George Jr., another son, complained to the general court "about the ferry at Weymouth" on 10 March, 1640.
According to Chamberlain (3:14) Thomas' first land was "in the plaine" and was then given to John Allen. Later, Thomas was given land "on the east side of Great Pond." Chamberlain goes on to say, without documentation, that Thomas was in Weymouth prior to 1635. He then gives another version of the famous/infamous canoe. According to him, John King was the captain when the drowning took place. Besides the passengers, the canoe carried a load of salt that caused the capsizing (ibid., pp. 349, 350.)
The last land record for Thomas in Weymouth is 02 Feb¬ruary, 1651 when he was given lot 28 on "the east side of Fresh Pond" (Howard 1:199, see Chamberlain; also Nash a, p. 281.)
The final item on the land of Thomas is given by Nash a, p. 255:
The land of John Allin
“five acres on the plaine first granted to Thomas Applegate bounded on the East by a lot of Joseph Shawes on the East & south with on the West by Ralph Allins lot the sea on the north two acres at the same bounded with the sea Eyght a¬cres on the necke the land of Henry Kingman on the East Thomas Holbrooke on the west the common on the north first granted to George Allin Two acres and a quarter twelve rod of meddow in the wes¬ter neck first giuen to George Allin bounded on the East with the marsh of Richard Siluester on the west with the marsh of William ffrie the sea on the north the land of Henry Kingman on the south ...”
In 1641, Joshua Coffin noted that he saw Thomas in Weymouth (Farmer, p. 18.)

Apparently, the Applegates were of independent spirit and free speech that did not endear them to the Puritans. This may have been a factor in inducing them to move to Rhode Island. Characteristically our first data from Rhode Island are of Thomas in court (Chapin, 2:133.) He filed suit against John Room(e) of Newport for use of a house (Map 1 5) on 01 December, 1641. In a complicated set of suits, Thomas, Room(e), Nicolas Cotteral and William Heavens sued and countersued each other up to 03 December, 1643 (ibid., 135, 138, 142, 150, 152.)
(Unk-Mary F—“On 1 June 1641, ‘Will[ia]m Newland complains against Thomas Applegate, in an action of trespass upon the case, to the damage of £20. The jury find for the plaintiff, and assesses him £8 damages, and the charges of the suit’ [PCR 7:19]. On 1 June 1641, ‘Richard Burne undertook & promised to make good & pay all such damages as might happen if Thomas Applegate should by bringing the suit about again recover anything against W[illia]m Newland, who this court hath recovered against the said Applegate £8 damages, and the charge of the suit’ [PCR 2:18]. On 6 September 1641, ‘Thomas Applegate complains against Will[ia]m Newland in an action of trespass for detaining certain swine. The jury find for the defendant & give him the charges of the suit’ [PCR 7:23]. On 7 September 1641, George Allen & Mr. Edward Dillingham are nominated, by consent of both parties, to apprize the swine Will[ia]m Newland hath in execution of Thom[as] Applegate, and what the want in value of eight pounds & charges the said Applegate is to give his bill to the said Newland for payment thereof’ [PCR 2:24]. {All of the participants in this dispute except for Applegate resided in Sandwich. Allpegate may have resided there briefly between his years in Weymouth and Newport, but there is no direct evidence for this.}
“On 1 december 1641, ‘[Thomas] Applegate of Nuport’ sued John Roome of the same town [Chapin 2:133, 135]. On 7 June 1643, William Dyer of Newport sued ‘Thomas Applegate, weaver, of the same town,’ and at the same court session Henry Bull sued Applegate [Chapin 2:141]. On 5 September 1643, ‘Thomas Applegate of Nuport’ sued Edward Andrews, and on the same day he sued ‘W[illia]m Heavens of Portsmo[uth] upon a mortgage of house & land consigned by Sam[uel] Willbore to the said Thomas’ [Chapin 2:147]. On 3 december 1643, a dispute between Nicholas Cotterell and Thjomas Applegate was sent to arbitration [Chapin 2:149]; this dispute, or another between the same two men, was still alive in 1646 [Chapin 2:161].”
According to Rhode Island Colony Records (1:7,) the land had been granted to William Heavens by the town council. Hea¬vens, identified as a carpenter, mortgaged the property to Nicholas Cotteral and, with the money, built a house on the lot. Later, Cotteral foreclosed and sold the property and house to Thomas. He, in turn, attempted to sell it to George Cozzens. The property apparently is on what is now Aquidneck Avenue, Middletown (then part of Newport.)
Our next record of Thomas is also a court case (ibid., 1:135.) A Jermey Gould filed against Thomas. Both are ident¬ified as being from Newport. Mr. Coggesdall was appointed as referee and both Thomas and Jermey were ordered to abide by his decision no later than the last day of April, 1642. Nei¬ther the cause of the dispute nor the resolution were listed.
Edward Browce sold Thomas, identified as a weaver, a four acre house lot between the lots of George Cleer and Thomas Roberts on 21 January, 1643 (Rhode Island Colony Rec¬ords, 2:3.) The same records show that George Gardiner switched lots with Thomas Applegate. The lots are in the region of Newport's main post office Thames Street at Memorial Boulevard. In the 1650s, all these home lots were purchased by Benedict Arnold, the great grandfather of the traitor. Their separate identities were lost at that time.
On 20/21 March, 1643, James Rogers sold three parcels of land to Thomas Applegate, weaver (ibid., 2:1:) First, Roger's house and lot; second, a four acre lot between the lots of Edward Andrews and Michael Spence and third. the western half of Roger's "30 acre great lot" (Map 1 5.)
On 06 May, 1643, Edward Andrews sold to Robert Jefferies two four acre lots (ibid., 2:4.) The land north of the lots was described as being owned by Thomas Applegate, weaver. However, Thomas had sold that land to Jefferies nine months earlier.
Thomas took time out from his real estate dealings (but not for long) to engage in another court case. On 07 June, 1643, William Dyer of Newport filed suit against Thomas Apple¬gate, weaver, of the same town for "detayning of goods to the damage of 40s the D:ackdnowledged wrong & was injoyned to aske forgiveness of the pl and his wife for wronging of them & so carry back the goods to the Pl. house" (ibid., 2:141.)
On the same page (and probably on or near the same date) Henry Bull filed suit against Thomas for tresspass. Applegate was to "Satisfie" the claim by order of the court.
A few months later, 20 August, 1643, Thomas sold to Robert Jefferies two home lots of four acres each (ibid., 2:3.) One lot was that sold Thomas on 21 January, 1643 by Edward Browce. The other lot, location unknown, was given Thomas by the town.
Thomas also held land to the south. It is now known as Price's Neck (Map 1 5.) By the original deed, William Dyre bought the neck from Thomas Applegate who obtained it by a town grant. On 20 December, 1644, Dyre sold it to George Gardiner (ibid., 2:5.) On 14 December, 1652, Gardiner sold it to John Price (hence today's name.) on 04 December, 1652, Price sold it to Thomas Clarke. He bought it for his broth¬er, John, who was in England on state business.
Austin (pp. 47, 48) lists a Thomas Clarke having a will dated 28 July, 1674 and proved 18 December, 1678. In the will, he leaves to "brother Joseph Clarke's children, equally all that is due from brother John Clarke, for service and tendence when he was gone to England for twelve years ... I purchased 10 acres at Applegate's neck upon this island;" i.e., Aquidneck.
On page 46, the will of John Clarke says "at the decease of wife, the trustees to distribute and dispose of profits of the farm and marsh for relief of the poor and bringing up of children unto learning." This trust, one of the oldest in the nation, is still in effect and is based on Thomas' land.
After his father's death, Bartholomew empowered Henry Timberlake to occupy some of the land in Rhode Island (O'Cal-laghan b, p. 155.) A Henry Timberlake is listed by Austin (p. 204.) Henry, son of William, lived in Newport. In 1678, he was listed as a freeman, and, in 1680, paid a tax of L4/8. The various holdings of Thomas are shown in Map 1 6.
Appelgat's Plaine is mentioned in Rhode Island Land Evi¬dence (1:71.) William Dyre was colony secretary and he was one of the men who originally laid out the roads, farms and lots. In 1654, he wrote:
“An other high way from the Entrance of mr. Coggesdalls farme to goe to castle hill and soe leadinge to all the Lands and Comons upon the neck wch way was layd out by us to the Brooke that came down by Apelgates Plaine the rest is not detirmined as yett where to runn A highway from the Towne layd out of 2 poles wide to wi. Dyres farme and soe to lead to the lands on the north side of the Towne girt the meadows, mr. Coggingtons Cow¬pasture the Artillery Garden mr. Clarkes land and Willia Dyres Land soe by mr. Dyres meadow a way into the land that the said Dyre bought of Apelgate to fetch off the wood of that land for the townes use which land was layd forth by Captn Clarke and mr. Robert Jeffer¬ays as alsoe byn them was the wood reserved and the way appointed only for that use.”

(Mary F—“Teunis G. Bergen stated that Thomas Applegate was ‘in N[ew] A[msterdam] as early as 1641’ [Kings County Settlers 14], but no record has been found to support this claim.”—ED)
Sometime after Thomas sold his 15 acre farm on 05 May, 1644, he must have left Rhode Island. He is not listed in Rhode Island Land Evidences of 1648 1696 (Klyberg, 1921.) On 10 October, 1645, he was one of the original patentees of Flushing, Long Island (Thompson, 3:6.)
Apparently, Thomas did not stay long in Flushing. John Ruckman, one of the original patentees of Gravesend, sold Thomas land in Gravesend on 12 November, 1646 (Gravesend, 1:4.) On 17 December, 1646, the town council of Gravesend included Tho. Aplegate in the list of those required to keep twenty poles for a fence to be erected between the various lots (ibid., 1:9.) Thomas failed to keep up his part of the fence. On 13 April, 1647, the town council decided to "hyer a man to doe it" and have Thomas charged with the costs (ibid., 1:10.) Later, in February, 1648, Thomas agreed to help fence the common pasture (ibid., 1:19.)
Thomas was remembered in Flushing long after he moved away. Robert Field bought his property in the town and on 12 February, 1653, gave the land to Anthony Field, his son. Some controversy developed for, on 06 February, 1673, Charity Field, the widow of Robert, reported "that the home lott that lies between the old Applegates and the Lott that was formerly Doughty's is my sone Anthony Field's lott" (Field, 6:194.)
As usual, while in Gravesend, Thomas and Elizabeth were caught up in court cases. On 12 September, 1648, Ambrose Lon¬don brought suit against Elizabeth for saying that his wife milked the cows of Elizabeth. Elizabeth admitted she had said it but that she was merely repeating what Penelope Prince had told her. Upon questioning, Penelope acknowledged her fault and apologized. There is no record of Elizabeth being fined (Gravesend, 1:24.) (Furman-Voress-“Pennellope prince being questioned acknowledged her faulte in soe speaking and being sorrie for her words shee gave satisfaction one both sides.”—ED)
The Londons and Applegates tangled in court at least one more time. Elizabeth and son John testified on 04 January, 1649 that the wife of Ambrose London said that "Tho. Carnwell (Furman-Voress-“Cornwell”—ED) stole a rinlett and sacke" (ibid., 2:28.)
Thomas did not have a good year in 1650. Driggs (70:8) identifies him as owning a farm and "seem(ing) to have spend most of his leisure in the public stocks on the common outside Lady Moody's door." Furman (1983) has analyzed the court cases of Thomas while in Gravesend. He concludes there is some evidence that Driggs and Stockwell (p. 106) overstated both Thomas' offenses and his penalties. (From an unk source, possibly Stilwell, through the hands of Furman and then Voress-“Every town has its bad apple and Gravesend was without exception for it had the notorious Thomas Aplegate.” Hooray for our team!—ED)
Lady Moody is a most interesting character. I can find no biography of her although extracts of her activities are in several places. The best account, but no means the most exhaustive account, is in Merlis, Rosenzweig and Miller.
In one of the 1650 cases, Nicholas Stillwell brought action for slander against Thomas for saying "if plaintiffs debts were paid he would have little left." Apparently, Thomas stood mute; he was admonished and fined 12 guilders plus court costs (Gravesend, 1:58.)
On 14 February, 1650, Lieutenant Bulgar testified that he and Thomas went to Flushing. On the trip, Thomas took out several warrants that said Ensign George Baxter had received 40 guilders from Thomas. The very next line says that on 12 April, 1650, Tho. Aplegate made such a disturbance in court that business had to be suspended. The relationship between the 40 guilders and the disturbance is not clear to me (ibid., 1:42, 43.)
George Baxter, due to the large influx of English¬ speaking settlers on Long Island, was appointed official interpreter by the Dutch officials in New Amsterdam in 1642 (Janvier, p. 95.) He was characterized as "a fuming sort of person" and as a leader in the rebellion that broke out among the English on Long Island in 1655 (ibid., p. 97.)
On 08 January, 1651, Sergeant Hubbard, on behalf of his wife, brought suit against Thomas. Thomas was charged with slander in saying that Hubbard had but half a wife:
“Robert Clarke being disposed saith that Thomas Aplegate Sr. being some time att Manhattan, there waiting three days to have ye company of the said Robert Clarke to ye plantation of Gravesend, on ye way hee, his wife and said deponent come a¬long, ye said defendent said: "I heare" said hee, 'ye Governor Stuyvesant hath layed out your daughter for Ensign Baxter but I hope you will be wiser. 'Why?" said ye deponent. Ye defendent replyed saying: "Hee is a beggerly scabb and most of his maintainance hee hath in the place we are going to; and when hee is there ye Serjant Hubbard hath but halfe a wife." Ye wife of Mr. Clarke of ye age 48 being disposed witnesses the same. Thomas said "hee never spoke ye words."”
The court found him guilty. He was sentenced to "stand att ye public post during ye pleasure of ye court with a Paper upon his breast mentioning the fact the hee is a notorious scandalous person." Later, Thomas admitted he said the remark and asked Mrs. Hubbard for forgiveness which she gave. Thomas had to post a bond, on 11 January, 1651, of 500 guil¬ders to speak no more scandal. The bond was voided on 01 July, 1652 at the request of Thomas (ibid., 1:59, 60, 66.)
According to Stillwell (3:29,) trivial suits such as these became so common, the courts in self defense ruled that if the charges were not sustained, the plaintiff was fined. He attributes the suits to the isolated and dull lives of the colonists. Their "mental development on wholesome and broad lines" was not encouraged by their lifestyles. "Talk degener¬ated into gossip of a dangerous, personal line, readily em¬bellished and circulated over the convivial cup at the tav¬ern." Usually, in a court suit, the defendant, if found guilty, was let off if they confessed their guilt and expres¬sed remorse. Thomas, however, as a result of a loose tongue, stood in danger of losing it altogether:
“Thomas Applegate, so often in trouble, was charged with slandering Governor Stuyvesant, by saying he took bribes. He was brought before the town court in 1650, found guilty, the following is the sentence: "The court convinced by the evidence, that he has spo¬ken the said words, which are so contrary to all rules and laws devine and human, to scandalize and speak evil, especially of the governor, do adjudge that the said Applegate do deserve to have his tongue bored through with a red hot iron, and to make public ac¬knowledge of his great transgression therein, and never to have credit or belief in any testimony or relation he shall make either in court or country, and the execution of the said sentence do refer him to the mercy of the governor."”
Thomas escaped sentence by confessing his guilt (Stockwell, p. 106; Gravesend, 1:56 58).) (The entire case is interesting reading, and I don’t know the source, but it passed through Furman and Voress, and then thetre are two short lines-“But Thomas Aplegate did not learn his lesson for in a short time he began his devious actions again.”—ED)
We have yet another record of Thomas in court. His daughter, Helena, married Thomas Farrington. Upon his death, she married twice more and died shortly after the third mar¬riage. Hannah and her first husband had a son, Thomas. The boy's grandfather (our Thomas) posted a one thousand guilder bond upon being appointed guardian of the boy's estate. Also appointed were William Wilkins and John Tilton. The bond was dated 28 June, 1649 (ibid., 1:33.)
On 31 August, 1654, the following appeared in court records:
“Thomas Appellgat, pltf. v/s William Harack, deft. requests as grandfather of the surviv¬ing child of Thomas Farrington, that deft. shall deliver up to him the goods and cattle, which he as curator of the said child has in his possession according to the judgement of the Honble Director General and Council. Deft. states that three more were chosen as Guard¬ians and must be summed conjointly and offers to give over to pltf. what he has in his pos¬sion belong to the child, provided that Apple¬gat shall give sufficient security for the faithful administration of the property. Par¬ties being heard, it is ordered by the court that Apellgat may cite Harack and the other guardians to appear on the next court day and if they are willing to deliver up to Apel¬gat or have no valid reason, then shall Appel¬gat be held to give other and sufficient se¬curity for his proper administration thereof (Fernow, 1:235)”.
Hannah's last marriage was on 09 February, 1648 to Charles (Carl) Morgan. Three years later, "Scharles Morgen" on 14 September, 1651 gave his right to "100 guilders, sixteen stears and 4 pence" to Tomas Jones (Jonasen.) "Thomas Apel¬gat" signed as witness (Appendix.)
Morgan, identified as a sheriff, was originally from Nieuport, England and reached Raritan Bay in 1663. About 1644, he served as a cadet in the West India Company, Ja¬maica. On the proprietors map of land patented to Philip Carteret in 1681 there is land first transferred to Townley, then to Everison and finally to Morgan. It ran along Cheesequake Creek on the westerly side to the bay at Morgan and is one of the largest tracts of land on the map. Another parcel near a cedar swamp on the east side of the creek is also credited as Morgans (Martin, p. 32.)
I have one more record of Hannah's children:
“A warrant to the Constable and Overseers of Gravesend to make inquiry into the matter in difference between the children of Charles Morgen late of Gravesend and their mother in law.
For as much as I am given to understand that the children of Charles Morgen late of Gravesend deceased at present living with Katherine their mother in law do not behave themselves so dutifully towards her as they ought. These are to authorize and appoint you the present Constable and Overseers of the towne to make inquiry into the matter and with the advise of the Justice of the Peace there to take the best course wherein you can, and if you cause a devident to be made of the Estate betweene them the mother to have as neare as may be her parte and the children theirs according to the tenor of the will of the deceased, and for you acting and proceedings herein there will be unto you a sufficient warrent.
Given under my hand at Fort James in Newe Yorke this 2d day of November 1668. Chris¬toph and Christoph, p. 198, 199).”
Christoph and Christoph go on to say (p. 547) the term "mother in law" meant stepmother in seventeenth century usage. Charles Morgan from Newport, Wales appears in several records as marrying Helena Appelgat 09 February, 1648 and Catalyntie Huyberts from Haarlem on 18 December, 1652. Two children were baptized: Thomas on 17 July, 1650 and Jan on 23 August, 1654.
On 06 October, 1651, Richard Gibbons filed suit against Thomas for "violateing ye gates belongeing to ye common field" (Gravesend, 1:90.) On 09 November, 1651, Thom. Aplegat Senior sued William Auldridge for a debt of 09 guilders 07 stivers. William Bowne said he would try to pay the debt in a weeks time "if he can pcure ye money to see it pd." The court or¬dered Auldridge to pay it in 14 days if Bowne did not pay (ibid., 1:92.) On the same day, Thomas brought suit against William Goulder for a debt of 35 guilders 10 stivers. Thomas was in trouble again for his fence on 08 January, 1651. He failed to maintain it so the town repaired it and charged him for the costs (ibid, 1:61.) On the same day, son John was at Thomas' house. The court sent for John to pay his fine for breaking of the peace. John refused and told the court to "doe theyer worste" (ibid, 1:61.)
The last reference I have for Thomas is 15 January, 1656 when he appraised the estate of John Morris (ibid 3:445.) Thomas' wife, Elizabeth, and sons, Bartholomew, John and Thomas appear as freeholders of land in Gravesend in 1657 (Thompson, 3: 117.) Thomas Sr. died sometime in the years 1656 1657 (Cecily—in “Gravesend, Queens Co., NY”—ED). Those listing his death in 1652 are mistaken. (Cecily—Regarding Elizabeth, she says she was born in The “Netherlands or Norfolkshire, ENG”—ED) (As far as I can ascertain, any conclusions regarding Elizabeth’s date and place of birth is based entirely upon traditional family lore, without any basis in fact.—ED)
Thomas sired two daughters and four sons according to some historians: Margaret, Hannah (Helena), Ares, John, Bar¬tholomew and Thomas. Virkus b (p. 69) mentions Bartholomew, Ares, John and Thomas and says there were "three more not listed by name but mentioned." He does not say where they are mentioned, however. (Prior to coming to the New World, if our conclusions are correct that he came from Wilts [and they probably are], he sired at least one daughter. We mentioned this daughter’s marriage, in England, in our introduction. He may also have sired sons who were old enough to decide, on their own, to remain in England.—ED) The sons will be covered in Generation II. Hannah and her marriages have been referred to earlier. A good discussion of her is found in Reichner (p. 216.) There is but a single reference to Margaret (Evans, p. 29.) She witnessed a baptism of Pieter Simonszen. Furman (personal communication) believes this Margaret may have been a daugh¬ter in law of Thomas (first wife of son John) and not his daughter.
Ares, like George mentioned earlier, is an error. A 1679 signature on a land transaction has been translated "Ares Appellgate." (I don’t think we should discount this “Ares” so quickly. Howard is probably correct, but let’s keep an open mind for further research.—ED) It is most probable the signature is "Avis Appellgate" wife of John 4. See John 4 for a discussion.
Stillwell (3:13) equates an Arien Appell who took an oath of allegiance to the English in 1644 with Ares of the land transaction. Appell was Dutch and his genealogy is well known. Both O'Callaghan a and Bergen list many Appels. The name was common but none of the bearers were related to Thomas.
What has been given above are the only authentic records I have found of Thomas. Family traditions and legends abound. Most agree he was born in Norfolkshire, England (Virkus b, p. 69; Reichner, p. 216; Wolf, p. 52; Hardeman, p. 2.) (It is easy to say that the earliest dated reference is the one from which the later historians copied. This may be true; however, due to the lack of documentation, it is possible some of the later historians uncovered evidence to support their state¬ments.) His birth date is given as between 1600 and 1610. From data we can trust, it seems the earlier date is nearer correct. If the later date is correct, then Thomas was not only precocious but his sons were juvenile delinquents!
We can calculate his probable birth date from a few dates of his sons. Bartholomew, the eldest son, was born c. 1620. John, the middle son's tombstone says he died 1712, aged 82. This would put his birth 1630. The date of the two sons agree. If we assume Thomas was at least 21 when Bartholomew was born, then Thomas was born c. 1599.
Bowen (p. 1) states, without any documentation, that about 1560, a John Applegate was born in York, England. He was a tenant farmer on the estate of a nobleman of unknown name. That John had six issue: Ann, Clare, Ursula, Elizabeth, Nicholas and Thomas. The youngest, Thomas, was born 1600. Thomas remained on his father's farm and married an Elizabeth. Sometime between 1631 and 1635, they came to Massachusetts Bay Colony. No mention is made of any stay in Holland.
The Borthwick Institute of Historical Research of the University of York has deposited within its library most of the surviving parish records of York County. In 1987 and again in 1999, I requested them to search for the Applegate (and other spellings) family from 1600 to 1630 in the records. They reported that no such name could be found. This suggests to me that Bowen and Uncle Gilbert are not to be taken seriously.
I engaged the services of Mr. Patrick T. R. Palgrave¬ Moore, a professional genealogist from Norwich, England to hunt through the Norfolk Parish records for Thomas. A Thomas Applegate had daughter Amye baptized on 01 December, 1601/2, daughter Frances baptized on 28 September, 1603 and son Joseph baptized on 18 May, 1605. Thomas and his family disappear from the records of Little Walsingham after 1605. A John Applegate lived in Binham (next to Little Walsingham) and was a son of Thomas. John died in 1671. The Norfolk records con¬tain at least eight different families of Applegates dating from the late 1500s to early 1600s. There are no data linking any of them to our Thomas.
The famous "Doomsday Book" does not list any name close to Applegate or any that could be construed to mean Applegate. Hitching (1999) lists the parish records of 778 parishes of 1601 and 1602. Again, no Applegate or anything close is listed.
Thomas appears in the first record in the New World with money, influence, and knowledge of both English and Dutch laws. No record of Thomas prior to this has been found in spite of both personal and mail efforts in England. I have written to over 25 different repositories in England only to find no link to Thomas Applegate can be found in the late 1500s and early 1600s. There is a mystery here.
All traditions say Thomas moved to Holland to escape political or religious persecution. There is no factual evi¬dence for this that I have found. His stay in Holland (if he did go) is said to have been short (Salter, p. v.) Hardeman (p. 2) quoting Harvey L. Applegate says Thomas left England for Holland about 1625. This date, if true, supports the earlier birth date. It also means he was in Holland no more than 10 years since the ferry license is dated 1635. The New¬port Mercury (15 July, 1911) says Thomas landed in Weymouth in 1630 thus making his stay in Holland of five years duration. Unfortunately, no documentation is cited by the paper.
Moving to escape religious and/or political persecution is possible. His documented outspokenness makes either probable. (And we now know, almost for a certainty, that there really was an escape, for religious reasons.—ED) However, the sole reference to his religious be¬liefs that I have found says he was an adherent of the Church of England (Lewis, 3:12.) Of his issue, only the religious preference of Bartholomew is known Church of England (Weeks, 1:230.) This does not prove he did not suffer religious per¬secution; it does make it unlikely that he did.
In spite of intensive and extensive research of both the written records and the internet, no record of Thomas arriving here can be documented. Most of the searches have been of English records. If Thomas was indeed in Holland, it would have been easier and cheaper to go from Holland to the new World rather than returning to England as his exit point. Passage from England was expensive, time consuming and it was not at all certain permission would be given. To the con¬trary, exit from Holland was easy. The Dutch were glad to get rid of foreigners and did not require complicated exit pro¬cedures.
Ships would leave England with wool, go to Holland to trade for finished goods such as cloth and glass, go to the colonies and trade for raw materials that were taken to Eng¬land. Thus there were ample sailings from Holland to the New World.
Thurston, in a series of four articles in the Newark Evening News, reprinted a paper given before the Monmouth County Historical Association on 30 June, 1910. The paper "Early New England Emigrants to Monmouth County" by James Le Barron, says Thomas came to Weymouth in 1630. He does not document the statement. Moreover, he marries Thomas to the wife of his son, Thomas 5. Some caution must be used before the date can be accepted.
The several citations, without documentation, putting Thomas' arrival in Weymouth c. 1630 do not imply he came di-rectly from England/Holland to Weymouth/Plymouth or to any place in New England. Kevitt (1981) points out that in 1630 Weymouth had about 300 settlers. These came to the settlement in "a trickle" starting in 1623. They had no legal claim to the land. Several persons have suggested to me these were misfits who were not welcome in the more established set¬tlements. (It was believed they engaged in illegal trade with the Indians. I don’t know if there was such a thing as a “legal” or an “illegal” trade.—ED)
The early history of Weymouth is more convoluted and obscure that that of most other Massachusetts Bay Settlements (Great Migration Newsletter, p. 27, 1994.) From 1622 until 1635, the location was inhabited more or less continuously, but Weymouth (then called Wessagusset or Wessaguscus) was not a settled plantation i.e., did not have legal status. Weston was apparently the first to make a large scale settlement in 1622. No Applegate is listed amongst his settlers. The ear¬liest records date from 1644 and by that time the Applegates were long gone. When the Hull group arrived in 1635 with title to the land, these misfits were "second class citizens." Thomas may have been one of these and chose to move on to Rhode Island.
Thomas' movements may have been to escape political per-secution. I have found no data for or against this sug¬gestion. It will be recalled that Thomas showed financial re¬sources when he came to Massachusetts Bay Colony and an eye for business. This suggests another possible reason for the sojourn in Holland other than to escape political or religious prosecution. (I believe his resources came not from a stay in England prior to his arrival, but from his success in the weaving business, selling out prior to shipping out, a possible but questionable previous stay in the Netherlands, or any combination of same. I don’t think he was in the Netherlands just prior to coming here, unless it was a quick stop.—ED)
In the early 1600's, Holland and England were tied closely together in trade. Citizens of both countries freely entered into business with each other. There was free inter¬change of people and monies. Treaties of 1578 and 1617 al¬lowed Englishmen to settle in Holland for purposes of trade. Perhaps Thomas was engaged in trade. He is identified as a weaver in several sources. "The term 'weaver' apparently had a more general meaning than we would give it, embracing all engaged in cloth manufacture including the merchant of cloth and sometimes the ship owner. It implied more moveable wealth and more active intelligence than belonging to the laboring farmer (few farmers owned the land they tilled) and from it was generally presumed certain religious opinions" (Woodford, personal communication.)
Notestein (1954,) in a most readable book, discusses England from 1603 to 1630 and conditions there which may have led to colonization. He discusses at length (pp. 5, 76, 180, 181, 206, 221) the great depression in the weaving and fulling industry. The subject is covered in more detail in an earlier book by Clutterbuck (1885.) It may be that Thomas left England due to this depression.
Cressy (Chapter 3) covers in detail why persons moved to New England. In several places, he mentions the dismal rec¬ord of the clothing industry and says that hundreds of Eng¬lishmen employed in the clothing industry moved to Holland in the early 1600s. Perhaps Thomas was one of those.
It must be noted there is no evidence Thomas ever practiced the trade of weaving. The term "weaver" has been also applied to his son and grandsons. There is some indication they did not "weave" but were processors of cloth. See Thomas 5 for a discussion of this point. Although Thomas owned several farms, and was identified once as a planter, his frequent selling and trading of land suggests a real estate agent rather than a farmer.
The term "planter" had connotations in those days we do not impute to it today:
“From Maine on the extreme north to Virginia on the south the men who came to settle in the newly acquired territory adopted the name 'planters' to distinguish themselves as men who had come to fulfill a national obligation. They were not planters in the agricultural sense, but in its spiritual significance. They came not to plant crops for subsistence, but to plant on this vir¬gin soil a new nation to perpetuate under other skies the cultural development of Anglo Saxon civilization (Banks, p. 1).”
Thomas could at least sign his own name. This suggests (but does not prove) he could write and perhaps read. if so, then he was educated above most Englishman of his gener¬ation. This suggests that in England he was a person of some repute.
Tradition says that Thomas married in Holland but whom and how many times (supposing he did go to that country?) Some say his first wife was Mary Wall (Wolf, p. 52) or Eliza¬beth Wall (Hardeman, p 2.) Virkus a (p. 19, 73) and Reichner (p. 216) say his wife's name was Elizabeth but do not give her last name. In the New World, there was a close connection be¬tween the Walls and Applegates. They intermarried and moved together to the West. We have no reason to preferentially accept any one of the traditions at this time. (As shown in the introduction, we believe, because the facts sustain that belief over any other concept of Thomas’ origin [no other concepts having a shred of proof to uphold them] that our Thomas is the Thomas Apelgat who married Elizabeth Smith in 1612, in Westbury, Wiltshire, England. True, in those days in England, there were many men by the name of Thomas who married a woman by the name of Elizabeth. But this Thomas had the right variation of the name, was a weaver, in the right time span, who left England for the right reasons [a personality type we later found over here in our Thomas]. It is also true that the name Smith is not only difficult for my genealogist, and myself, to read, but was difficult for somebody in those days as well, since it is followed by [?]. But the written name sure isn’t Wall!—ED)
Two of Thomas' children are supposed to have been born in Holland (Wolf, p. 52.) They were Bartholomew I and John 4. Bartholomew is traditionally the eldest son, born c. 1632. John, however, according to his gravestone, was born c. 1630. Thomas 5 is the youngest. In 1653, according to Gravesend Records, he was an adult. This suggests Bartholomew was born in 1631 a year after John. Furman (1983) puts the birth of all the children in England.
There is a Captain Applegate connected with Holland. Ac-cording to one tradition, the captain was Thomas (McLean, in MEA.) Another tradition makes the captain the father of Thomas (Hardeman, p. 21.) It is highly probable both tradi¬tions are wrong.
The above is all our traditions tell us of Thomas in Holland. When and where did he leave the country? No one knows. The standard books on listing immigrants to the new world contain not a single reference to any Applegate except Clement and Edward. Thomas simply appeared circa 1635.
Some have suggested he went first to Barbados and then New England as many did. A search of English settlers in Barbados revealed no Applegates of any spelling (CD 22.)
Levermore (pp. 20 24) lists 33 voyages to New England be-tween 1602 and 1630. Twenty one were before 1620 hardly likely Thomas would have been aboard. Of the remaining twelve, Livermore presents the original records. It does not appear likely Thomas was connected with any of them. None of the twelve originated from Holland.
Bolton (1929) discusses pre Mayflower New England. He puts the first settlement there in 1602 (p. 10) and says, on the same page, that 250 vessels visited New England in 1615. Moreover, the land rights of these squatters (they had no legal rights to the land) were recognized by later settlers who had rights from the king. Bolton lists the various set¬tlements (pp. 166 l67) together with information on the set¬tlers. No Applegate (under any spelling) is listed. Oddly, although French, Spanish, Swedish and English settlers/set¬tlements/ships are listed, no Dutch settlement/ settler/ ship is listed.
Many persons spanning at least three generations of Applegates and, in some cases, using trained genealogists have sought Thomas in both England and Holland to no avail. As mentioned in my opening page, Thomas simply appears in the New World. Yet the settlers in the New World were not totally cut off from England:
“The early colonists were never as severely cut off as some have feared, nor did they fully turn their backs on old England. Migration, return migration, trade, kinship inheritance, money and messages tied London to Boston, and sustained a community of interest between provincial Massachusetts and provincial England. (Cressy, p. viii)”
Thomas had money, was literate and had connections in high places in the new world. It seems he must also had been a man substance in the old world. In spite of intensive searching, not a single trace of him has been found.
Cressy points out (p. 9) that knowledge of New England was wide spread in England in the 1600 1630 period. The gen¬eral consensus was ". . . New England promised wholesome air and brimming larders for the settlers and enormous profits for the merchants and investors." Thomas was an investor in the new world. Presumably, he came upon these favorable reports and, the weaving industry being in deep depression, decided to try his fortunes in New England.
John Smith, usually thought of in connection with Vir¬ginia, was one of New England most ardent backers. He wrote a monumental history of the area (some of it factual) and said that eighty ships from England landed in New England during 1616 and 1622. Thomas may have been on one of them.

The eighty ships were a result of:
“Competing groups of promoters and investors were interested in New England, and their political lobbying, fund raising and propaganda heightened awareness about the region. The principals understood that political su¬port. financial backing and the crucial com¬mitment of prospective settlers depended on the continued circulation of favorble news ... (Cressy, p. 12. )”
We have now covered the factual and traditional information on Edward, Clement, George, James and Thomas. It cer¬tainly appears that Thomas is the progenitor of the Applegate family in America. His issue were: Bartholomew 1; Helena 2; Margaret 3; John 4; and Thomas 5. (Based upon the story we are at this time accepting as the reason Thomas came to the New World, and from where, we know he had a daughter Mary who was left in England with her husband, and, I am betting there were at least two sons, named Daniel and Samuel. This bet, which I might lose, is based upon those names being used so often, immediately by his sons.—ED)
(Howard spent considerable time and money trying to locate Grandfather Thomas. But his genealogists didn’t look everywhere. That’s not possible. Very often, tough genealogy is not just a matter of skill, but also a matter of luck. If the reader has read the introduction, he will remember what this ED is now accepting as the probable origin of Thomas, and his reason for coming to the New World, until it is disproved with documentary facts. Unfortunately, one of Howard’s genealogists did locate Thomas, but nobody, myself included, when Howard informed me of the latest expense and results, realized the data for what it was. My own genealogist, after Howard’s death, found the same material, with a lot of added information. And that is what led us to the story we are presently accepting.
Before leaving off on this editorial note, I would like to mention one other thing. I have run across a mention that Thomas had two wives, both named Elizabeth; one named “Wall” and the other named “Morgan”. While there is no proof whatsoever of a wife named Morgan, there is also no proof of a wife named Wall either. I could easily accept the two wife theory. I could even easily accept one wife in England, and one wife over here. I could even easily accept two wives in England, and one or two wives over here. But, there is no proof for more than one wife anywhere. So, until we obtain such proof, let’s forego the speculation, and accept the proof we have: there is one wife, and we have no idea what her maiden name was, yet. It is now some years since I wrote that last ED comment, and as you know, if you read my introduction, we may have a maiden name. Our genealogist in England found a marriage, and the maiden name is pretty badly garbled, but she and I both agreed that it looked more like Smith than anything else.—ED)

Birth:
His birthdate is almost completely guesswork based on the also estimated birthrates of his children. The best documented age is that John 4, who died in 1712 at about age 80 according to transcriptions of his now missing stone.

Thomas — Elizabeth ?. Elizabeth was born , England. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 3

Margaret — Richard Salter. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5
• Residence: 1698, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 01 Feb 1698

Thomas — ?. [Group Sheet]

Thomas married Johanna Gibbons 1678. Johanna (daughter of Richard Gibbons) was born 1655, Norfolk, England; died Aft 1718; was buried , Middletown Baptist Churchyard, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 2

Hannah — Thomas Farrington. [Group Sheet]

Hannah married Louis Hulot 15 Aug 1646, New York City, New York, USA. [Group Sheet]

Hannah married Charles Morgan 09 Feb 1648, New Amsterdam. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1
• Residence: 1650, Gravesend, New York, USA

Notes:

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 Rhode Island following the death of Thomas (O'Callaghan-c, p. 155.) Also, the records of births and deaths of the children of Bartholomew and brother Thomas 5 make it apparent that Bartholomew was older than Thomas. However, if brother John 4 has his correct age inscribed on his tombstone, then he could 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 those times, 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 1650 thus 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 his mother-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 at Gravesend. 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 mill until 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 course hath 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 be levied on those "bringing suit without due and pregnant proofe." Barthollmew Aplegatt, William Musgove and Ambrose London were cited as being guilty and 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 still owned eight morgans of land in the town (p. 389.) On 22 March, 1661, Bartholomew and William Goulding (brother of sister-in-law, Avis) exchanged four-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, on 10 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 the Dutch 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 way magistrates 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 debt incurred 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 the Colony 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." The constable 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. The constable and overseers of Gravesend joined in presenting testimony against the three. Also testifying were Captain William Wilkins, Francis de Bruyne, John Askew, John Dawsen, Barbary Johnson, Peter Simpson, John Hubbard, Elizabeth Force and Elyas Dawes. The suit was for cutting down mill wheels. It was proved that the "axe that cutt the mill did fitt the chopps and notches in the timber" and belonged to Bartholomew. Bartholomew pleaded 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 if shee lent it." Bartholomew and Whitlock were found guilty but Thomas was acquitted. The verdict was that the guilty ones had to pay all costs - 30 pounds to Hubbard and 10 pounds as "Fine to his majestie for their great Misdemenor." They were also bound to good behavior (Christoph and Christoph-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 that Thos. Whitlock received of Mr. Dela-vall five pounds of the aforesaid somme, of wch the said Thomas delivered five pounds to the constable and overseers, 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 Island caused the local Indians to believe they could curry favor with Dutch authorities by kidnapping the wife on one of the chief English spokesman. This may 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 to characterize 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 from the Indians. Shortly thereafter, 18 April, 1674, a caveat was entered saying that land had already been granted. The land in question was two Dutch miles 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) Bartholomew Applegadt, 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 land was 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 those of 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 the land. 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 over control 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 as being 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 are shown. The map can be obtained from either Rutgers University or the Monmouth County Historical Society. A portion of it is reproduced here (Map II 10.
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 the area's most radical patriots, housed Continental soldiers and headquartered the local militia. Yet Tinton Falls was also vulnerable -its location near 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 Tinental regiment stationed there, However the alerted Continentals retreated to Colts Neck without offering resistance. Deprived of battle, the Tories razed the Falls instead. Benjamin White, a store clerk at the falls recalled the the Tories as being,"So enraged that they lost their prey, they set 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 Continental commander 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 houses of five militia officers, including Col. Daniel Hendrickson and Lt. Col. Aucke Wikoff the shore area's two highest ranking officers and captured each of them. The outnumbered militia pursued, "with more spirit than providence" according to one report, and fought a fierce one-hour battle with the raiders near Rumson. In the battle, the patriots swore that they would not grant quarter;and the Tories fought dirty, using their bound hostages as 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 officers were 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 the village. Morris reported the locals were "quiting their habitations observing that if they must starve, they had rather do it in the countryside than in the British jail." Morris concluded that because the patriot leaders were captured or dead, his mission would fail unless the Governor sent troops, "they are farmers and mechanics in the middling circunstances, I have little hopes of continuing long without assistance." The troop never arrived 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 blood generated at this time lasted several years. Holland first claimed ownership of New Jersey based on Henry Hudson's discovery. Dutch ownership came to an end when Colonel Richard Nicolls defeated them in battle. Nicolls wore several hats - one of which was Deputy Governor of New Jersey. Nicolls gave very generous terms to induce newcomers to settle there. As a result, there was large immigration from Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York. 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 least locally) Monmouth Patent. The patentees promised to respect the liberal terms of Nicolls as they disposed of land. However, the Duke of York, who Nicolls represented, sold New Jersey to Lord Berkely and Sir George Carteret. Nicolls was replaced by George Carteret. He promptly laid down new rules 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 his brother-in-law (Richard), attacked the sheriff and "brake his head," took his swords, "brake them away and kept to the value of five pounds." Bowne and 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 requested confirmation 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 which 200 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 represented Bartholomew 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 a Bartholomew to Milford. Someone by that name, at some unknown date, was complained of for selling liquor (Savage, 1:60.) I doubt if it was this Bartholomew 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 and mill 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 indicate that 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 made by 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. The reason for the nonsusit is given in Appendix. The grain mill was damaged (inoperable?) due to Lewis Morris building an iron works up river and diverting 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 how Thomas 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 delinquent in 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 said Bomen 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, he was 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 & Fourty Acors of medoe etc in Sloughter Neck." Boman said it was "but a breach of covenant & therefore craved a nonsuit." The court agreed and gave Bartholomew liberty to "mend his declaration" and referred the matter to the next court. In the March term (ibid, 1:642,) Bartholomew "declares for two hundred acors of land & fourty acors of meadoe fresh and sault as it is expressed in Certain Artickles of agreement or covenant made betwext the pltf & 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 said there 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. Bartholomew said 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 would appeal.
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 of saile 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 suit of Bartholomew Applegate." Two pages later in the same term (ibid, 1:665,) both men withdrew all suits actions, appeals, judgements and executions that "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 he hath 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 in the 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 a brother-in-law. This is repeated by Wolf (1972.) There are no data to substantiate the statements. However, several persons, in reviewing this manuscript have stated they believed Bartholomew was married twice. Son Thomas 1E may have been from Miss Sadler - after becoming Mrs. Applegate may we hope?
Furman (personal communication) believes another son, John, also resulted from this marriage. This son died in Oyster Bay c. 1718. Furman says there is 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 long hospitalization and death, wrote she had located an unknown John and much data in New York at this time period. Her illness and death prevented me from 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, Mary and perhaps others (Lewis, 3:3; Wolf, p. 52; Stillwell-a, 3:1); Jacob, Ebenezer, William, Sarah, Daniel, Bartholomew and John (DTA); John 1A, Hannah IB, Mary 1C, and Daniel ID, (Voress.) Jacob is also listed by the International Genealogical Index 3.03, North America. Miller (p. 63) says Bartholomew had thirteen sons. None of those listing the children give any documentation. I have followed Voress but added sons Thomas IE (Gravesend Records,) Samuel IF (Monmouth Court of Sessions Records) and Bartholomew 1G (Monmouth County Historical Association.) My numbering does not relate to 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 was stirring there, to reduce that and other villages on Long Island for the Colony of Hartford, which caused no little trouble to some well affected people, 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 and commissioned to preceed with Secretary Van Ruayven to said villages and to inquire of the magistrates, by whose authority and commission these rebels presume to act, who were the ringleaders and what their meaning and intentions are. They shall report to us, how and by what means these rebels 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 Utrecht on Long Island to inform the Director General and Council that about 300 Englishmen have gathered at Jamaica, also called Rustdorp, who intend to come 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 the forenoon, 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 attacked by 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 wish to 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 Fort Amsterdam, 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 Jersey Wheelwright - having formerly made a contract with the Inhabitants of the Towne of Shrowsbury aforesaid about setting up a corn mill to serve the said 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 that might 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 became unservicable to me, Nevertheless the Towne aforesaid considering the great loss and damages I sustained by being deposed of the benofitt of my Mill was pleased to give their consent that I should have a share of land within the said Towneship In order whereunto the Survayer General Robert Lapary did 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 Nwest by 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 tract of 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 in hand paid the receipt whereof is hereby acknowldge I have and doe by these presents Bargain sell alianate convey & confirm unto the said Col Lewis Morris his heirs, executors administrators & assigns all that my fore mentioned Plantation situate lying and being in the Bound of the Towne of Shrowsbery aforesaid, To him the said Col. Lewis Morris and for his use forever and farther promise to make good & warrant the said sale against all per-sonl whatsoever. In witness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand and seal this 30 Day of January 1682/3
Bartholomous His mark Applegate

Bartholomew married Hannah Patrick 15 Oct 1650, Gravesend, Kings County, New York, USA. (daughter of Daniel Patrick and Anna Van Beyerem) [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 4
• Residence: 1650, Gravesend, New York, USA
• Residence: 1663, Oyster Bay, New York, USA
• Date of Will: 13 Nov 1704, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA

John married Avis Goulding 1657, Gravesend, New York, USA. Avis (daughter of William Goulding) died 03 Feb 1717. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5A
• Residence: 1743, Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 15 Dec 1743

Thomas — ?. [Group Sheet]

Thomas — Ann Perrine. Ann was buried , Alpine Cemetery, Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E

John married Elizabeth Wirthley 1697, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA. Elizabeth was born 1678, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA; died 1740, Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

John married Hannah Pettit Aft 1740. Hannah was born Abt 1700, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5C

Daniel — Hannah ?. Hannah died 1710, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5D
• Residence: Feb 1716, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA
• Residence: 1759, Windsor Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 01 Mar 1759

Notes:

Birth:
BET 1678 AND 1680

Residence:
Joseph Applegate was identified as being a resident of Fairfield when he was appointed administrator of the remaining estate of John Applegate after the death of Avis (Goulding) Applegate. There is no known other Joseph who could fit here.

Joseph — ? ?. [Group Sheet]

Joseph — Mary ?. Mary died Aft 1759. [Group Sheet]

Joseph married Alice Hartshorne 1717. (daughter of Hugh Hartshorne and Catherine Tilton) [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5B

Elizabeth married Cornelius Compton 1698. Cornelius was born 1672; died 1750. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G
• Residence: 1732, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 07 Nov 1732, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA

Richard married Rebecca Winter Abt 1705. Rebecca (daughter of William Winter and Hannah Grover) was born 1692, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA; died Abt 1732. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F
• Occupation: 1732, New Windsor Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA
• Residence: 1753, Nottingham Township, Burlington County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 23 Feb 1753

Notes:

Occupation:
Constable

Benjamin married Elizabeth Morford Abt 1712. Elizabeth (daughter of John Morford and Margaret Frazer) was born 1685, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA; died 1750, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Baptism: 17 Jul 1650, New Amsterdam

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1L

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1K

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1J

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1F

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1E

Thomas — ? ?. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1B

Hannah married Francis Herbert Abt 1688. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1B

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D
• Date of Will: 15 Oct 1709

Notes:

This placement reflects the work of K Appelget and Howard Applegate in straightening out the Daniels and correcting Stillwell's error. We prefer the identification of Daniel as the child of Bartholomew and Hannah Patrick in Vol. III to the identification of Daniel as the child of Thomas and Johanna Gibbons in Vol. V.

Date of Will:
name spelled Apellgat

Daniel married Rebecca Tilton 16 Dec 1686. Rebecca (daughter of Peter Tilton and Rebecca Brazier) was born 06 Sep 1667, Gravesend, New York, USA; died 27 Apr 1739, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1A
• Date of Will: 12 Jan 1687
• Date of Will: 24 Oct 1688

Notes:

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 of three 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 was given "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 field and 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 alias Runasuch, Cherhegen alias Quarapin and Samos sold to Robert Townsend, son of Henry Townsend, Sr. land known as Cedar Swamp "... bounded on the south by 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 of land from the Indians. On 26 March, 1685, Quarapin, Suscanema and Samous (same Indians - different spelling) sold a piece of Cedar Swamp (about 60 acres) 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 a freeholder 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, 1687 except "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; witnesses were 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 in Oyster 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 land given 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.

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1H

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1I

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1G

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5A1
• Residence: 1770, South Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 16 Nov 1770

Thomas — Sarah ?. Sarah died 07 Apr 1782, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5A2
• Date of Will: 19 Sep 1782

John married Mary Cotterell 27 Sep 1748, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5A3
• Residence: 1744, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA

Notes:

Buried:
So Young
Section B

James — ? ?. [Group Sheet]

James married Elizabeth Buckalew 21 Feb 1744. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5A4
• Residence: 1792, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 09 Feb 1792
• Baptism: 22 Feb 1792

Notes:

Baptism:
The baptism date is not an error. He was baptized just before he died.

Andrew married ? Abt 1754. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E2

Abigail — ? Martin. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E3

Ursula — ? Bennett. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E4

Elsie — ? Clayton. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E5

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E6

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E12

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E13

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E10

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E1

Benjamin married Elizabeth Parent 18 Jul 1729, Burlington County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E7

Thomas — Hannah Disborough. [Group Sheet]

Thomas — Ann ?. Ann was buried , First Baptist Church Cemetery, Hightstown, Mercer County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E11

Notes:

Died:
BET 1781 AND 1786

Jacob — ?. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E8
• Date of Will: 03 Oct 1777
• Residence: 03 Oct 1777, Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA

Notes:

Birth:
BET 1710 AND 1720

Residence:
Fourth Ward

Zebulon married Ruth ? Abt 1735. Ruth died Bef 30 Sep 1779; was buried , Alpine Cemetery, Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5E9
• Residence: 1787, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 14 Oct 1787

John — Hannah ?. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5C1
• Residence: 1780, Windsor Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 23 Nov 1780

Notes:

Birth:
BET 1705 AND 1715

William — Hannah ?. Hannah was born , Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5D2

Moses — ?. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5D3

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5D1

Richard married Esther ? Abt 1725. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5D5
• Residence: 1736, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA

John married Sarah Pettit 06 Oct 1736. Sarah was born , Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5D4

Notes:

Birth:
BET 1710 AND 1720

Died:
BET 1759 AND 1762

Joseph — Elizabeth ?. Elizabeth died Aft 1766. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5D6

Alice married Joseph Limming 1759. Joseph was born 1745; died 1819, Clark Township, Brown County, Ohio, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G1
• Residence: 1748, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA

John — Sarah Worthley. Sarah was born 11 Sep 1706; died 29 Jun 1741. [Group Sheet]

John married Mary Cottrell 27 Sep 1748. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G2

Joseph married Esther Lukins 1743. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G3

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G4

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G5
• Residence: 1745, Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA

Hannah married George Watwood 20 May 1745. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G8
• Residence: 1737, Middlesex County, New Jersey, USA

Johannah married John Feavil 01 Mar 1737. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G7
• Occupation: Abt 1742
• Residence: 1758, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA

Notes:

Occupation:
to Patrick Johnson of New York City

William married Elizabeth Ogborne 06 Mar 1758. Elizabeth (daughter of John Ogbourne and Mary Stillwell) was born 03 Apr 1738; died 21 Dec 1786. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5G6
• Residence: 1753, Shoal Harbor, New Jersey, USA
• Residence: 1753, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA

Rebecca married Samuel Bray 02 Oct 1753. Samuel (son of John Bray and Elizabeth Bowne) was born 21 Jun 1729, Holmdel Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA; died 25 Aug 1794, Holmdel Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F6

Joanna — John Feavel. John was born , Upper Freehold, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F8

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F1

Thomas — Sarah ?. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F4
• Residence: 1798, Scott County, Kentucky, USA
• Date of Will: 01 Jul 1798

Notes:

McDonald gives a birth date of 1727

Richard married Catherine Wiggins 1748, Albany, Albany County, New York, USA. Catherine was born , Albany, New York, USA; died Abt 1779. [Group Sheet]

Richard married Rebecca ? Aft 1779. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F2
• Residence: 1821, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA
• Date of Will: 20 Jan 1821
• Date of Will: 03 Jan 1823

Benjamin — Rebecca Wall. Rebecca (daughter of James Wall and Hannah Storey) was born 1730; died 15 Nov 1781, Pennsylvania, USA. [Group Sheet]

Benjamin — Hannah ?. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F3

Notes:

Died:
Earlier versions had his death date confused with that of his son. There is some evidence he died in abt. 1813 in Allegheny Co., PA and is buried there; but his stone has been removed.

William — Sarah Wiggins. Sarah was born Abt 1742, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA; was buried , Applegate Pitman Cemetery, Heth Township, Harrison County, Indiana, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F7

Alse married Walter Wall Abt 1760, New Jersey, USA. Walter (son of James Wall and Hannah Storey) was born 1743, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA; died 1792, Elizabeth, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 5F5
• Residence: 1810, Elizabeth Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA
• Date of Will: 02 Oct 1810

Daniel — Elizabeth Harvey. Elizabeth died Abt 1816. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1E1

Bartholomew — ?. [Group Sheet]

Obadiah married Hannah Lawrence 1729. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D4
• Residence: 1743, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 01 Mar 1772, Upper Freehold Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA

Ebenezer married Mary Imlay 09 Jul 1743, New Jersey, USA. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D2
• Residence: 1763, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA
• Residence: 1765, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA
• Date of Will: 01 Oct 1765

Notes:

Birth:
BET 1682 AND 1689

Jacob — ?. [Group Sheet]

Jacob married Catherine Manlees 08 Aug 1763. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D1

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D5

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D3

Bartholomew — Mary ?. [Group Sheet]

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D8

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D7

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D6

Other Events:

• Voress Number: 1D9

Richard — ?. [Group Sheet]