Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Tuttle Crazyness Ensues .... with more murder!

Yes, that's right ........ the Tuttle family CRAZYNESS continues!  (My 10x Great Grandmother was Sarah Tuttle, who was murdered by her brother infront of her children) .... 

This story is about Sarah's sisters, Mercy who killed her son, and then Elizabeth who was ... wild with her ways and disappeared after her divorce......

I found these stories of the Tuttle Sinister Sisters .... HERE ....  I can take no credit for writing these, I am just sharing ....

Mercy Tuttle, the eleventh child of William & Elizabeth, was born April 27, 1650. When only a young girl of 14 years old in 1664, she was accused, probably unjustly, of stealing and drinking liquor.

She married Samuel Brown in 1667. When she was 41 years of age, Mercy killed her seventeen-year-old son, Samuel, Jr. with an axe in the town of Wallingford. Samuel was wounded on June 23, 1691 and died six days later. The examination of his father, Samuel Brown, Sr., took place June 30, 1691:

1. Who gave the wounds? Ans. His wife. He heard heavy blows, started from his bed, and went to the chamber; found her by the bedside, striking with an axe in her hand. He stopped her and threw away the axe and went to the bed. She again got hold of the axe, and he seized it.

2. What was and had been the state of her mind? As rational as ever. She had attended to her business as usual. She hid the axe at night, under her apron.

Despite Samuel Brown's testimony as to the rational state of his wife's mind, he later added the information that "his poor wife said the day before, she would have the children buried in the barn." He replied, "They are well. Why talk so foolishly?" She replied, "Dreadful times are coming." Samuel and Sarah B[rown], hearing their mother talk so, Samuel asked her if she could kill him. "Yes," she replied, "if I thought it would not hurt you." Samuel Brown also noted that Mercy had "slept but little for two or three nights before."

Her husband stated that he had seen her give the blow with the axe and that he had "thought her sane that day", though he later pleaded in court that his wife's act had not been from malice but from "distraction". Joseph Brown, aged 24, lived in the house with his father, and testified October 2, 1691 that "she threw scalding water at him...he thinks her much out of her head." Simon Tuttle and his wife Abigail "think their sister Mercy was distracted that morning and before." Mary [sic s/b Martha], wife of John Moss, testified that "Mercy came to their house a little before the sad accident and wished Mr. Moss to look after her husband."

John and Mary Beach swore October 6, 1691 that Mercy had come to their house for fire that morning and appeared as usual, but Rachael Beach, aged 16, heard Mr. Beach say, "When she came out with the fire, she went down the hill towards the swamp, and he thought she was distracted." Jonathan Tuttle, Samuel Street, Jr. and J. Westwood thought Mercy "was shaken in her understanding," an opinion shared "by those who carried her to New Haven." Daniel Clark testified that "at times in prison she appeared distracted. About once a week she would exclaim against some person; and of late appears much grieved at giving offense to a person present, of which he was ignorant."

Mercy was tried for murder before the Grand Jury under an indictment dated October 1, 1691. The Jury of Inquest on the body of Samuel Brown, Jr. found three wounds in his head which caused his death. Gerhsom Bulkley was attorney for the defense and Samuel Brown, Sr. was permitted to address the jury. He told the jury that Mercy could have no knowledge of her action, and reminded its members that an asylum was provided for the distracted. The jury's verdict was, however, "She wilfully killed her son Samuel." The judge intoned, "Mercy Brown, ye hath committed a most unnatural the instigation of the divill...for which thou oughtest to die." Yet many in the town spoke in favor of Mercy's being exonerated, albeit by virtue of insanity. It is fair to say that Mercy was delusional and psychotic.

Sir Edmund Andros, who had been appointed in 1686 as governor of the Dominion of New England, had interfered with colonial rights and customs. In 1689 the resentful colonists deposed and arrested him and in the following year shipped him to England for trial. In the confusion of the law and authority resulting from the removal of Sir Edmund from office, Mercy (Tuttle) Brown escaped execution. She was still living in 1695.


Elizabeth Tuttle, the eighth child of William & Elizabeth Tuttle, married Richard Edwards November 19, 1667. Elizabeth early on showed signs of an impetuous nature and lack of decorum which was quite at odds with the Puritan standards of the day.

From the minutes of "A County Court holden by adjournment at Hartford, 1668" came this note:

Richard Edwards and Elizabeth his wife, being called to an account of incontinency before marriage, the Court having considered what hath been presented, with the acknowledgement of the said Richard that he was upon the bed with her at Mr. Wells, his house, before marriage, the best part of one night, and in company with her at New Haven (according to which the child was borne), this Court cannot but judge and declare the child borne of the said Elizabeth to be and be reputed child of the said Richard Edwards, and for their incontinency [sex] before marriage, they are adjudged to pay [as] a fine to the public treasury of the County of Hartford, the sum of five pounds.

Richard subsequently learned that he was not the father of the first child, Mary, and on July 2, 1689, he filed a petition to divorce her. He rather plaintively based his divorce action on the following four reasons: "(1) Her being guilty at first of a fact of ye same nature; (2) Her refusing me so longer together; (3) Her carage having been observed by some to bee very fond and unseemly to some other man than my self; (4) Her often comending on other man with show or ye like wordsÉhee was worth a thousand of my self." That "other man" may have been one William Pitkin, for he brought suit against Richards Edwards in May of 1691 for using a term in his divorce case that was "derogatory of his (Pitkin's) honor." The records found in "Crimes and Misdemeanors, Divorces, 1664-1732, Document No. 235" read:

He found, three mo. after marriage, that she was with child by another (Mr. Randolph), who she accused before 2 magistrates; and her father [William Tuttle] took and brought up the child; which from regard to her and relying upon her fair promises, he [Richard] neglected to take advantage of her, for which he had bitter cause to repent. He lived with her eight or nine years, when she obstinately refused conjugal communion with him, and deserted his bed; and her conduct was so intolerable that by advice, he traveled abroad, hoping by his absence she would relent. On his return, for a while, she behaved herself, but soon, in answer to some question, she said she had committed folly with another man, whom she named, and fell into her old fits of obstinacy; and he renounced her as a wife, and so has since lived. She has caused him intolerable and insupportable afflictions. He enters into a long scriptural argument for divorce and quotes early Christian examples and authorities. She is guilty of adultery, and he prays a release.

Edwards' plea for divorce was denied despite the fact that Elizabeth's two eldest children by Edwards, Timothy and Abigail, testified against her, "to the great obstinacy of their mother and to her absenting herself from their father's bed and society."

Two years later, in October 1691, a council of "able divines" (including the famous Rev. Thomas Hooker and Rev. Increase Mather) were assembled to consider the divorce action again. At that time Richard Edwars made a second, more long-winded plea. By then he was calling himself an attorney, though he was self-taught. Besides, he needed to be free to marry Mary Talcott, with whom he was having sex. In fact, Mary Talcott had been fined for fornication with him.

On top of that, Mercy Brown, Elizabeth's sister, had killed her son the previous spring and her brother Benjamin had been executed for murdering their sister, Sarah prior to that. It became clear that Elizabeth herself was, at times, not in her right mind, and often threatened to murder her husband while he was asleep. Surely the judges would understand that Richard's fear of Elizabeth was not unfounded. The upshot of this second plea was that the ministers decided "it is not within the compass of human power to deny him a divorce." Edwards was granted the divorce and eventually married Mary Talcott, with whom he had six children.

After the divorce, there is no record of Elizabeth ever marrying again. Nor was the date of her death recorded, which leads one to believe that she may have been leading a marginal existence by the time she died. It is possible, too, that she committed suicide. Suicide was a grave sin in those times, and a person who had committed suicide could not be buried in a cemetery. Perhaps she had wandered to another, wilder part of the country and died in an area where records were not kept.

Ironically, Elizabeth Tuttle was the ancestor of a family that was to have an amazing impact on American history. Her son Timothy married a Stoddard, and he became the father of Jonathan Edwards, the brilliant, neurotic minister who has been called the last of the great Puritans who helped fuel the religious revival movement known as the Great Awakening. Jonathan Edwards married a Pierpont. His descendants went on to be influential ministers, college presidents, financiers, surgeons and judges. Perhaps the most famous descendant was Aaron Burr.

I send many thanks to Sam Behling at THE WEBSITE I found the story at for putting it together!!  There will be more I share too :)

Monday, May 21, 2012

Murder in the Family ...

Oh those Tuttles..... My 10x Great Grandmother Sarah (Tuttle) Slawson was murdered by her brother AXE MURDERED ..... wow, Lizzy Borden Family anyone?.....  imagine my surprise when I found a story about it!!  So here I share - the story I read ...  found HERE.

Several of William & Elizabeth Tuttle's children left an array of bizarre court records. Daughter Sarah Tuttle was merely a flirt, but two separate incidents have guaranteed her place in history. At a court held in New Haven, May 1, 1660, Jacob Murline and Sarah Tuttle were prosecuted for "sinful dalliance". They were accused of "sitting down on a chest together, his arm about her waist and her arm upon his should or about his neck, and continuing in this sinful position about half an hour, in which time he kissed her and she kissed him, and they kissed one another", as the witnesses testify. This complaint was made by Sarah's father under a law that whosoever should inveigle or draw away the affections of any maid or maid servant for himself or others, without first obtaining the consent of her parents or guardians, should pay, besides all the damages the parent might sustain, 40 shillings for the first offense, and for the second towards the same person, 4 pounds and for the third, fined, imprisoned and corporally punished, as the Plantation court may direct.

The term "inveigling" appears to have had rather wide implications. There were cases in which the young man charged with this offense had done nothing more than to walk with the girl on a country road. Young women who consented to advances from the men were also looked upon with legal disfavor. William Tuttle pleaded that Jacob had endeavored to steal away his daughter's affections.

Additionally, Governor John Winthrop, Jr. declared that "the business for which they were warned to the Court he had heard in private at his house which he related to stand thus; on the day John Potter was married, Sarah Tuttle went to Mr. Murline's for some three hours. Mr. Murline bid her go to her daughters in the other room, where they fell into speech of John Potter & his wife, that they were both lame, upon which Sarah Tuttle said that she wondered what they would do at night whereupon Jacob came in a tooke away or took up her gloves; Sarah desired him to give her the gloves, to which he answered he would do so, if she would give him a kiss, upon which they sate downe together, his arme being about her & her arme upon his shoulder or about he necke & he kissed her & shee him, or they kissed one another, continuing in this posture about half an houre. Mrs. Murline now in Court said that she heard her say, she wondered what they would doe at night & she replied they must sleep, but there was company with her in the roome, and she was in a strait; but it is matter of sorrow & shame to her."

Jacob was asked what he had to say to these things; to which he answered, "yes he was in the other roome & when he heard Sarah speake those words he went in, where shee haveing let fall her gloves, he tooke them up & she asked him for them; hee told her he would if shee would kisse him which she did; further said that he tooke her by her hand & they both sate downe upon a chest, but whether his arme were about her & her arme upon his shoulder or about his neck, he knowes not, but he never thought of it since, till Mr. Raymond told him of it; for which he was blamed & told that it appeares that he hath not layd it to heart as he ought. But Sarah Tuttle replyed that shee did not kiss him; but Sarah being asked if Jacob had inveigled her, she said, no; tho Tuttle said that he came to their house two or three times before he went to Holland & they two were together & to what end he came he knowes not unless it were to inveigle her & their mother warned Sarah not to keep company with him. Jacob denyed that he came to their house with any such intention nor did it appeare so to the Court. Governor Winthrop told Sarah that her miscarriage is the greatest that a virgin should be so bold in the presence of others, to carry it as she had done & to speake such corrupt words, most of the things charged being acknowledged by her self, though that about kissing him is denyed, yet the thing is proved. Sarah professed that she was sorry that she had carried it so foolishly & sinfully which she sees to be hateful; she hoped God would help her to carry it better for time to come. The Governor also told Jacob that his carriage hath beene very evil and sinfull, so to carry towards her; & to make such a light matter of it as not to thinke of it (as he had exprest) doth greatly aggravate."
Sarah was characterized by the court as a "bold virgin" who had better mend her ways. She said meekly that she would. Jacob was set free and told to shun such virgins as Sarah. The Court declared, "that we have heard in the publique ministry that it is a thing to be lamented that younge people should have their meetings, to the corrupting of themselves & one another; as for Sarah Tuttle, her miscarriages are very great, that she should utter so corrupt a speech as she did concerning the persons to be married & that she should carry it in such an imodest, uncivil, wanton, lascivious manner, as hath beene proved; & for Jacob, his carriage hath beene verry corrupt & sinfull, such as brings reproach upon the family & place; the sentence therefore concerning them was, that they shall pay either of them as a fine 20 shillings to the Treasurer."
Sarah Tuttle died at the hands of her brother, Benjamin on November 17, 1676. Twenty-nine year old Benjamin made his family's name in history with that rather indelicate instrument, the axe. That night he began quarreling with sister, Sarah. A fragment of paper preserved in the CT State Archives contains a statement by Benjamin.

In it he said that he was with his sister, that they had had a falling out, that he was afraid she would do to him what he had done to her, and that he had no love for her. He and Sarah may have been arguing about the division of their dead father's considerable property, or perhaps Sarah made a disparaging remark about their sister, Elizabeth, who was showing the same flirtatious nature as Sarah had. Benjamin may have reminded Sarah that she was no angel; she had scandalized the town in her youth by publicly exchanging kisses with a Dutch sailor, for which she and the sailor were fined.

Whatever the quarrel was about, Benjamin resolved it in a terrible, final manner. He went to the barn, got an axe, returned to the house and struck Sarah on the head, "maulling & mashing her head to many pieces in a barbarous and bloudy maner." Benjamin then ran away and hid in the woods, but was later apprehended and tried and convicted for the murder May 29, 1677.
An official record of the case appears in Crimes, op. cit. Document No. 80:

A veardet of a Jourey's Inqest in Stamford, novemb'r 18th 1676 one the death of Sarah Slason, wif to Jno. Slason; howe was found barbarsley Slayen In hur one hous, as followeth -

We hous names are hear undar wretten (of the Jourey) and how a greed undar outh decleare: the body of the womman we found leyeng dead a cros the hearth, with hur head In the cornar of the chem[ney], wounded after this mannar: the Skull and Jaw, eaxtremly broken, from the Jaw to hur neack, and soo to the crown of the head, one the right Sied of the Same, with part of her brayens out, wich ran out at a hool, wich was Struck through her head, behind the ear. Judgeng the weppon with wich It was dune to be with a narro ax that laye near hur, wich was much bloddy a bout the pooll of the same, and a pone Inqisishon from the children of Jno. and Sarah Slasson, Jno. Slasson, sune to Jno. and Sarah, as a boye aged a bought twelief years, sayeth that, beeng In his fat[her's] hous one Sattarday night, the 18th of this Instant, a bought one houar and half with In the night, his mothar, him self and the rest of the children beeng thare, his mothar beeng at the fiare, Sitteng In a chare, and bengimun tuttell Setteng [at] the chimny cornar near his mothar, his mothar was saying to hur children [that] She was Sorry hur husband was gone to mr. bishops without his Suppar, exspecteng he was gon to watch, for She feard he would be Sick for want of It. Bengiman tuttell replyeng verry Short, that he might have had It befor he went If he would. his mothar ansreng him a gaiene with this reply: you ned not be Soo short, a pone wich he went out of the dooars, an when he was out his bothar bead his Sistar Sarrah, Shutt the dore, beang It Smockt, and as She went to Shut It, bengiman tuttall came In with Sumtheng In his hand and Spock these words anggarly: Ile Shut the doar for you and soo went to his mother and struck her one the right Sied of the heed with that he broght In his hand, but knoes not whethar It was an ax or other weppon; at wich blow She fell and nevar Spock nor groned more; and followd with Sevrell blows aftar She fell, Standeng over hur, a pone wich he rune out of doars and cried [two illegible words]. Just as he struck his mothar the furst blow, bengiman tuttell Sayed I will tech you to Scold and a pone thaire criyeng out, bengiman tuttell fled; There beeng no parson In the hous when the mistchef begun, to help them. Sarah Slason, dafter to Jno. and Sarah Slason, was a bout aged a bout niene yeares, declared the same varbattom.

Wee, the Juary, doe declare that the decklaratshon of the boy and the gurl as above was declared befor us by them, and doe Judg that the wund one her heed was the caus of her death, as witnes our hands.

henary Smith 
Danyell Scofeld 
Samuel dibboll
Caleb hiatt 
Jno. Asten 
Jno. Selleck 
Rich: Law 
Frances Bell 
Jno. homs 
Jno. Grene 
Isak [illegible]

[Translated into modern English]

A verdict of a Jury's Inquest in Stamford, November 18th 1676 on the death of Sarah Slauson, wife to John Slauson; who was found barbarously slain in her own house, as follows -
"We whose names are here under written (of the Jury) and how agreed under oath declare: the body of the woman we found lying dead across the hearth, with her head in the corner of the chimney wounded after this manner: the skull and jaw extremely broken, from the jaw to her neck, and so to the crown of the head, on the right side of the same, with part of her brains out, which ran out at a hole, which was struck through her head, behind the ear. Judging the weapon with which it was done to be with a narrow ax that lay near her, which was much bloody about the pool of the same, and upon inquisition from the children of John and Sarah Slauson. John Slauson, son to John and Sarah, as a boy aged about twelve years, says that, being in his father's house one Saturday night, the 18th of this instant, about one hour and half within the night, his mother, himself and the rest of the children being there, his mother being at the fire, sitting in a chare, and Benjamin Tuttle sitting [at] the chimney corner near his mother. His [John's] mother was saying to her children [that] she was sorry her husband was gone to Mr. Bishop's without his supper, expecting he was gone to watch, [citizen night patrol] for she feared he would be sick for want of It. Benjamin Tuttle replying very short, that he might have had it before he went if he would. His [John's] mother answering him again with this reply: "You need not be so short", upon which he went out of the doors, and when he was out his brother bade his Sister Sarah [John's sister Sarah, not his mother Sarah] shut the door, being it smoked, and as she went to shut it, Benjamin Tuttle came in with something in his hand and spoke these words angrily: "I'll shut the door for you," and so went to his [John's] mother and struck her one the right side of the head with that he brought in his hand, but knows not whether it was an ax or other weapon; at which blow she fell and never spoke nor groaned more; and followed with several blows after she fell, standing over her, upon which he run out of doors and cried [two illegible words]. Just as he struck his mother the first blow, Benjamin Tuttle said, "I will teach you to scold," and upon their crying out, Benjamin Tuttle fled; there being no parson in the house when the mischief begun, to help them. Sarah Slauson, daughter to John and Sarah Slauson, was about aged a bout nine years, declared the same verbatim.

We, the Jury, doe declare that the declaration of the boy and the girl as above was declared before us by them, and do judge that the wound on her head was the cause of her death, as witness our hands."

The Grand Jury haveing heard the accusation against Benjamen Tuttell did return that they found the Bill here followes the Indictment: Benjamen Tutle thou art indicted by the name of Benjamen Tutle late of Stamford that not haveing the fear of God before thine eyes thou hast most wickedly risen up against thy sister, Sarah the wife of John Slawson of Stamford afoarsayd some time in November last about the 18th day & by smiteing her with an axe or some other instrument of death thou hast slayne her for which according to the law of God & the lawes of this colony thou deservest to dye. The prisoner haveing heard the Indictment read was required to Answer Guilty or not guilty; he Answered not guilty & referred himselfe to be tryed by God & the country. The former Jury being called man by man & the prisoner ordered to look upon them & accept or except against them, he accepting of them the case was comitted to the sayd Jury. The Jury return that they finde Benjamen Tutle Guilty according to the Inditment. The court haveing considered the return of the Jury doe approve of the same. And accordingly did sentence the sayd Benjamen Tutle to be carryed hence to the place from whence he came & at a convenient time to be carryed thence to the place of execution & there to be hanged by the neck till he dyes & then out downe & buryed. This court appoynts that execution be done upon the prisoner according to sentence the 13th of June next & the secretary is appoynted to signe a warrnt to the marshall to see execution done according to the sentance. And the reverend Mr. Nath. Collins is desired & appoynted to preach the lecture that day execution is to be done.

Benjamin was hanged at New Haven, June 13, 1677.

I totally thank Sam Behling at THE WEBSITE I found the story at for putting it together!!  There will be more I share too :)

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Salem vs. the Witches ..... (part 2)

You can read part 1 of Salem vs. the Witches here if you haven't already .......

Susannah (North) Martin wasn't a young woman with bewitching looks who's eyes lingered on a jealous wife's husband for too long.   No, she was well into her life - aged 67 years and a widow, no longer protected by her husband. 

The BACK Story ...

Susannah North was one of a handful of accused witches during the Salem Witch Trials who did not actually live in Salem. She was born, 30 Sept 1621 in Buckinghamshire, England to Richard North and his wife Joan (Bartram). Her mother died only a few short years after Susannah's birth.  Now, my records indicate Susannah's mother Joan died in 1624 (possibly 1630), but her Father Richard had already married his second wife, Ursula, in 1620... most likely they got married in 1623, though, after Joan had died and he needed help with the five surviving children.  I also have records of several other children. Only one of which I could solidly confirm with a baptismal record, but I haven't dug too far yet.   There was Martin North who was born in 1611, died around the age of 6 in 1617.  John North was born in 1617 and died in infancy in 1617 or 1618.  Mary North was also born in 1617, I'm assuming her and John were twins.   Hester North was born in 1618 and died before her father did in 1648.  Sarah North was born in 1619 and had possibly married a man by the name of Oldham, and having a daughter named Ann.   I wonder if Sarah had died in childbirth of Ann, as that was pretty common in those days.  There is no record of her husband's first name, or when they were wed.  After Sarah was born there was another John North born in 1620.  He survived until 1649.  Then Susannah had been born in 1621.    I wonder if, after Susannah, childbirth had just taken so much of a toll on Joan.  She was older then most woman having babies, as her and Richard had started late .....  It is suggested they got married in 1610 Nov. 29.   I found several birth years for Joan, the two making the most sense would be 1585 (her mother would have been about 17) or 1590 (her mother would have been about 22.) .... So lets go with 1590, just cuz.  Richard was also born in 1590.  That would have made them 20 when they got married in 1610.  They started having children in 1611.  By the time Susannah was born she would have been in her 30s.  And she died shortly after Susannah's birth.  At least two of her children had died, and possibly more we don't really know about.  It's hard.

I have found some things that might suggest that Joan and Ursula were related, possibly cousins?

Susannah relocated with her father and stepmother to the Merrimack plantation in Salisbury, Massachusetts in 1639.  Records indicate Mary went with - also, as she died in Massachusetts ... however - records show - whatever reason, true of false, that Hester died in England.

The North family were some of the first settlers of Salisbury, which is located 40 miles north of Boston and was originally called Colchester before being renamed Salisbury in 1640. The family lived with the other settlers on plots along the “circular road,” now known as the triangle formation of Elm street, School street and Bridge road in Salisbury square.

At the time, the area was inhabited by Pennacook Native Americans, wolves and wild animals. The Pennacook, also known by the names Merrimack and Pawtucket, were a North American people that primarily inhabited the Merrimack River valley of present-day New Hampshire and Massachusetts, as well as portions of southern Maine.

After Susannah grew up, she married a blacksmith from Salisbury named George Martin in 1646 and eventually gave birth to eight children. In 1654, George and Susannah moved to nearby Amesbury.

 Susannah wasn't any sort of stranger to being accused of witchcraft.   Much like the other accused witches, Susannah was also viewed by others as a troublemaker and her name appears numerous times in court records prior to the Salem Witch Trials. Like Bridget Bishop, Susannah had also been accused of witchcraft twice before 1692.

During her first witchcraft case, she was accused by William Browne of tormenting his wife Elizabeth with her spirit. After her arrest, Susannah was released on bail and the charges were eventually dropped.

She was accused again in 1669, this time by William Sargent Jr, who also said he witnessed Susannah give birth to and kill an illegitimate baby. Susannah posted bail, promising to return to court for her trial but, again, the charges were dropped. Her husband, George, later sued Sargent for slander. The court held Sargent libel for slander in accusing Susannah of fornication and infanticide but the court sided with Sargent on the witchcraft accusations.

In public gossip, however, her reputation as a witch appears to have continued.

At the same time as the first accusations of witchcraft Susannah and her husband were involved in a series of legal battles over her inheritance. In 1667 (possibly 1668) her father, Richard North, died leaving two daughters (Susannah and Mary, the rest of the children had died), a granddaughter, and his second wife to share his sizable estate.  **Now, as a note, Susannah and Mary both had several children by the time their father died, so saying he was survived by ONE granddaughter is an understatement, as there were - by my count - eleven boys and eight girls between them, they each had lost at least one child at this point)....  it is possible and he and Ursula had raised Sarah's  daughter, Ann, however, and that is the one granddaughter they are referring to.  Seems to make sense if you think about it that way ....

To the surprise of Susannah and her sister, they received only a tiny portion while the bulk of the estate passed to his second wife, who died soon after her husband. Susannah's stepmother left the majority of North's estate to his granddaughter, continuing the exclusion of Susannah and her sister. From 1671 to 1674 Susannah's husband and her sister pursued a series of appeals, all of which were ultimately unsuccessful.

With the death of her husband in 1686, and all the failed attempts at acquiring her due inheritance, Susannah was left a poor, defenseless widow.

When she was accused of witchcraft for the final time in 1692, she had no one to come to her rescue.

According to Susannah’s arrest warrant, she was accused by the afflicted Salem village girls: Mary Walcott, Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam and Mary Lewis. Since they lived in different villages, it is not known how these girls knew Susannah, but it is possible they heard about her bad reputation from others and made the decision to accuse her.

Arrest Warrent
Susannah Martin's Arrest Warrent .... 30 April 1692

To the Marshall of the County of Essex of his Lawful Deputies or to the Constable of Amesbury:

You are in their Majests names hereby required forthwith or as soon as may be to apprehend and bring (before us) Susanna Mertin of Amsbury in ye county of Essex Widdow at ye house of Lt. Nathaniel Ingersalls in Salem village in order to her examination Relating to high suspicion of sundry acts of Witchcraft donne or committed by her upon ye Bodys of Mary Walcot, Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam and Mercy Lewis of Salem village or farmes whereby great hurt and damage hath beene donne to ye bodys of said persons according to complt of Capt. Jonathan walcot & Serg Thomas putnam in behalf of their Majests this day exhibited before us for themselves and also for several of their neighbors and here you are not to fail at your peril.

Dated Salem Aprill 30th 1692.

John Hathorn
Jonathan Corwin

Apprehension Document

According to this Warrant I have apprehended Susanna Martin Widdow of Amsbury and have brong or caused her to be brought to the place appointed for her examination pr Me.

Salem Village this 2d May 1692

Orlando Bagley
Const of Amsbury

 There are two documents out there with initial testimony on it.  In this transcrpt they have been combined for better understanding...

Preliminary Trial

Preliminary Trial, May 2nd 1692

For the crime of witchcraft and sorcery, Susanna Martin pled not guilty. As soon as she came in many had fits.
Magistrate: Do you know this woman?
Abigial Williams saith it is Goody Martin, she hath hurt me often. Others by fits were hindered from speaking. Eliza Hubbard said she hath not been hurt by her. John Indian said he had not seen her. Mercy Lewis pointed to her and fell into a little fit. Ann Putnam threw her glove in a fit at her. The examinant laughed.
Magistrate: What! Do you laugh at it?
Martin: Well I may at such folly.
Magistrate: Is this folly, the hurt of these persons?
Martin: I never hurt man or woman or child.
Marcy Lewis cried out, she hath hurt me a great many times and pulls me down. Then Martin laughed again. Mary Walcott saith this woman hath hurt me a great many times.
Magistrate: What do you say to this?
Martin: I have no hand in witchcraft.
Magistrate: What did you do? Did not you give your consent?
Martin: No, never in my life.
Magistrate: Pray, what ails these people?
Martin: I don’t know.
Magistrate: But what do you think ails them?
Martin: I do not desire to spend my judgment upon it.
Magistrate: Do not you think they are bewitched?
Martin: No, I do not think they are.
Magistrate: Tell us your thought about them then.
Martin: No. My thoughts are my own when they are in, but thwen they are out they are another’s. Their master.
Magistrate: You said their master. Who do you think is their master?
Martin: If they be dealing in the black art, you may know as well as I.
Magistrate: Well, what have you done towards this?
Martin: Nothing at all.
Magistrate: Why, ’tis you or your appearance.
Martin: Well, I cannot help it.
Magistrate: Is it not your master?
Martin: I desire to lead myself according to the word of God.
Magistrate: Is this according to God’s word?
Martin: If I were such a person I would tell you the truth.
Magistrate: How comes your appearance just now to hurt these?
Martin: How do I know?
Magistrate: Are not you willing to tell the truth?
Martin: I cannot tell. He that appeared in the shape of Sam[uel] shape a glorified saint may appear in anyone’s shape.
Magistrate: Do you believe these do not say true?
Martin: They may lie for aught I know.
Magistrate: May not you lie?
Martin: I dare not tell a lie if it would save my life.
Magistrate: Then you will speak the Truth.
Martin: I have spoke nothing else. I would do them any good.
Magistrate: I do not think you have such affections for them whom just now you insinuated had the devil for their Master.
Eliz Hubbard was afflicted and then the Marshall who was by her said she (Martin) pinched her hard. Several of the afflicted cried out they saw her upon the beam.
Magistrate: Pray God discover you, if you be guilty.
Martin: Amen, Amen. A false tongue will never make a guilty person. < P> You have been a long time coming to the Court today; you can come fast enough in the night, said Mercy Lewis.
Martin: No, sweetheart.
Then Mercy Lewis and all many of the rest were afflicted. John Indian fell into a violet fit and said it was that woman, she bites, she bites, and then she was biting her lips.
Magistrate: Have you not compassion for these afflicted?
Martin: No, I have none.
Some cried out there was the black man with her and Goody Vibber who had not accused her before confirmed it. Abigail Williams upon trial could not come near her. Nor Goody Vibber, nor Mary Walcott. John Indian cried he would kill her if he came near Hear but he was flung down in his approach to her.
Magistrate: What is the reason these cannot come near you?
Martin: I cannot tell. It may be the Devil bears me more malice than another.
Magistrate: Do not you see how God evidently discovers you?
Martin: No. Not a bit for that.
Magistrate: All the congregation think so.
Martin: Let them think what they will.
Magistrate: What is the reason these cannot come near you?
Martin: I do not know, but they can if they will, or else if you please I will come to them.
Magistrate: What is the black man whispering to you?
Martin: There was none whispered to me.

Be sure to tune into more about Susannah and the other Witches from Salem ....

Friday, May 18, 2012

I got a GIFT today ....

When I opened my mailbox today I got SUCH A GIFT .....  I have a couple photos of my Grandparents (on my Mom's side) ....  but I'm not sure where they are right now.  My Mom had brought over a few things for me to scan of my grandparents, including a couple photos of my Grandmother. 

But today ..... I got a gift .... photos of my Grandfather who I had this major bond with .... 

My Grandpa was adopted ... his parents, William and Olga Thalacker had both contracted Tuberculosis while Olga was pregnant with my Grandfather.  My Grandfather was born in July of 1921 and William died in November.  My Great-Grandmother wasn't allowed to keep the baby, she thought she was dying.   William had set things up with his sister, Lucy. 

Louise "Lucy" Magdaline Thalacker was born January 3, 1889, in the town of Albany, Pepin County, Wisconsin and she died on June 25, 1951.   (Can I put a note in here that my birthday is June 25th! Eeps!)  .... She married Gail Day on the 15th of September in 1915 in Eau Claire, WI ... and they made their home in Rock Falls, Dunn County, Wisconsin.  Gail operated a meat locker business.  Gail was born April 7, 1891 in Rock Creek Township, Dunn County, Wisconsin and died on June 6, 1964.  Both Lucy and Gail died in Rock Falls.

The house they had still stands in Rock Falls.  

Lucy and Gail adopted my Grandfather, in 1922.  He was their only child.   He loved them greatly.  So much that he and my grandmother buried the son that they lost, Lynn, at their feet. 

My Grandmother was born on May 5, 1922 .....  I often laugh because my Mom was born Feb. 2, 1955.  5-5-22... 2-2-55 ....    

Anyway - my Grandmother, Berneil Eva Wheaton, was born in Bridge Creek, Wisconsin.  (Augusta)...  my grandparents got married on June 10, 1949.

I know that my Grandmother and Grandfather - both - served in the military during World War II.  I remembering once, asking what my Grandmother did, and she told me that she typed ....   I'm not sure the extent of my Grandfather's service.  Hopefully one of my family members does. 

You know how they tell you in school to ASK your grandparents about their past .....  well, you really need to.  Before it's to late.   At this point, I really regret not prying more ...... asking more questions, and learning as much as I could .....

It's funny when it excites you when you find out that your Great-Grandfather (adopted) had a meat locker business - because it's something you never know that.....

My Grandparents had 9 children.  I also know that my Grandmother had at least one miscarriage, but I believe it was more than one. 

Dana  ....   he is married with two children.  His son just recently got married...
Melayne (my mom) ....  has me, I'm married with four kids and one step-daughter
Ricki ... he has one daughter
Randy .... he is married with four children
Clark ....  he is married with three children (and many step-kids, I think five?) ... his oldest daughter is married with one son
Lance .... he is married with two boys, one of them is married with three kids... 
Lynn ..... he was Lance's twin brother who died at 2 days old.  My Grandparents were told Lance was the weaker of the two, and they needed to get him baptized right away.  So they got someone in to baptize them ... and Lynn was the one that passed.  He ended up aspirating :(
Peter ..... he is married and has two children
Tracy ....  he has five girls...  two of which have two children of their own....

So ....... they had nine kids, eight of which survived ....  20 Grandchildren (I feel like I'm missing some?) ... and so far...... 11 Great Grandchildren .... 

Anyway - I totally got off what I was even doing.  I wanted to share the photos I got of my Grandfather. 

First, here are two of my Grandmother........ Berneil
Here are the photos I got of my Grandfather ..... Lawrence

And with that - I am going to bed!

Thursday, May 17, 2012

What EXACTLY are We?

Well, I got super curious ....... and I wanted to know exactly what percentage of what I was.  Of course, if I want to know what I am...... I want to know what my husband and kids are.   The only one I haven't figured out yet is my step-daughter ....   I am going to start her tree eventually - of course, I have half of it done with my husband, but the OTHER half is the problem.....  

Regardless ......... this excites me :)
German BARELY wins out over Irish!

My husband is.......
My kids are .......

My oldest two (with my ex husband)
And my younger two with my hubby ...

Notice - I am only 3% English (British) and my husband is 31% .....  he had a LONG LONG LONG line of Puritans in his blood, I have a little....  one branch....  my Great-Great Grandfather Jesse's branch is the only one that goes back to the Puritans and to England.  A lot of my ancestors were in Plymouth, Mass .... and a lot of them settled in Connecticut.     Dennis' have been all over the US - but most of them settled in Mass in Salem and Plymouth.  Early founders of cities ... some crazy stories mixed in there .......

But what I find funny is .   I am re-doing my ex-husband's English line and Dennis' because they were related to the same people (still are) and something didn't make sense.....   so I just deleted about 3000 years for both of them and started over, and now that I'm doing everything very carefully and making sure the dates and such make sense.... I'm not running into the actual ROYALTY for either of them that I originally did - of course, I'm not done yet.

However, my little tiny 3% ....... yep, we're totally Royal!!   I have English & Queens Kings, French Kings & Queens, Spanish (from Spain) Kings and Queens.... I can even trace my tree to King Henry the VIIIth who've I've always been interested in - HOWEVER - he is not DIRECTLY related to me, we share a Great (whatever x's) Grandfather......

So all those stories of the Royalty and Nobility on all sides will be shared!

On another note, the little "unknown" factor in mine (and my kids) comes from a line I can't trace back to anything right now.  I'm *assuming* it's going to be Puritan English again - but I can't get anywhere yet.  I haven't dug in yet - but I will!

** I want to add these were taken from what I could trace back to (like way back in the 1600's my ancestors came from England) ... or where the first several generations came from.  I didn't get methodical and  - for example - take into consideration all the French or Spanish Kings I have in my line ... the line - prior to coming to America - was in England.  Just wanted to make that clear since you don't see French and all that in our stuff as of yet ...... **

** Dennis also has an Indian in his line ....  his 6x Great Grandmother was a Narragansett Indian, I cannot trace her part of the line back as I don't even know her name as of yet.  This is all stuff I am going to continue to work on, one to figure out if it's true or not, and it would be super interesting.  Funny enough - the Indian Princess (that's what I call her for now) married a man named Ichabod who is the link back to the Salem Witch Trials on Dennis' side **

Salem vs. the Witches ..... (part 1)

Growing up ..... there were three things that interested me a lot.  1: My Grandfather's adoption and my Great-grandparents dying so young.  Always wanted to know more ....   2: Salem and the Trials of Witchcraft .... and 3: I have always been drawn to Ireland.

I grew up thinking was mostly Irish ........ ehhhhhhh ......... wrong!   But I do have a good chuck of Irish blood in me. 

1: I'm starting to figure out - definitely know more now than I did last month!
3: German be damned - I am (second) mostly Irish!  HA!  Then Norwegian ....

Now, that brings me to do........

Going through my family tree get this flip of my heart when I hit the early 1700's and Salem...  late 1600's and Salem ....

::: hold my breath :::

Could I have an ancestor who was involved in some way in the Salem Witch Trials?????

I found a list of everyone accused of Witchcraft .... in Salem in 1692 ....

The one name I thought I had found - Ruth Canterlbury - actually died in 1692 ...  she had married Thomas Small - and on ancestry was linked to my relative Anna or Mary Ann Small who married Thomas Wheadon ....

Now, it might LOOK like a match, but ..... it's not.

Digging deep I found out that Ruth was married 3 times, first to Thomas Small and they had 5 children: John, William, Lidia, Ann & Hanna .... all born between 1665 and 1673 in Salem ... my Anna/Mary Ann was born in 1635/1640 .... and (according to the hints, in Connecticut not Massachusetts)  .... so I'm at this........



...... and I don't get it.

I feel my connection to Salem slipping away ...... away ...... away ............

BUT IN OTHER NEWS ...... I thought - wouldn't it be funny if Connecticut had "Witch Trials" like Salem did ... and sure enough, lesser known but happened a lot longer.  So we'll see if I have a Witchy connection that way because I have a lot of ancestors there at that time.

But here is the kicker.

I'm working on my husband's line and ...... BAM - kick in the pants.

Not only did he have ancestors in Salem during the Salem Witch Trials, but one of them was hung - and I didn't have to go digging for it.  There it was - all among the leaves on ancestry.

Dennis' 10x Great Grandmother was Susannah (North) Martin ... also known as "Goody" Martin.  Goody was a nickname often given to "Good Housewives" ...... I suspect as a sort of "Ma'am" type generality...

The text on the doll reads:

Hatred and prejudice now banished
Let love reside
Across the veil of time our ancestors call
We are still wise ones through it all

      (taken from Wikipedia)
Susannah Martin (baptized September 30, 1621 – July 19, 1692) was a woman and a victim of the Salem witch trials.

Martin was the third daughter of Richard North and Joan (Bartram) North. Her mother died when she was a child. Her stepmother was named Ursula. She was baptized in Olney, Buckinghamshire, England on September 30, 1621. Her family first moved to Salisbury, Massachusetts around 1639. 

On August 11, 1646 at Salisbury, Susannah married the widower George Martin, a blacksmith with whom she had eight children, including daughter Jane, the great-great-great-great grandmother of Chester A. Arthur.

In 1669, Susannah was first formally accused of witchcraft by William Sargent. In turn, George Martin sued Sargent for two counts of slander against Susannah. Sargent was found liable for slander in accusing Susannah of fornication and infanticide, and George received minor compensation. Sargent was acquitted of slander for accusing Susannah of witchcraft. A higher court later dismissed the witchcraft charges.

By 1671, the Martin family was again involved in legal proceedings dealing with the matter of Ursula North's inheritance, most of which Ursula had left to her granddaughter, Mary Jones Winsley. The court sided against Susannah and George, though Susannah was able to bring five further appeals, each being decided against her.

George had died by 1686, leaving Susannah an impoverished widow by the time of the second accusation of witchcraft in 1692. Inhabitants of nearby Salem Village, Massachusetts had named Susannah a witch and stated she had attempted to recruit them into witchcraft. Susannah was tried for these charges, during which process she proved by all accounts to be pious and quoted the Bible freely, something a witch was said incapable of. Cotton Mather countered Susannah's defence by stating in effect that the Devil's servants were capable of putting on a show of perfect innocence and Godliness.

Susannah was found guilty, and was hanged on July 19, 1692 in Salem.

In the 19th Century, poet John Greenleaf Whittier composed The Witch's Daughter about Martin.

I will share more of Susannah's story in time.   There is a lot out there ... 

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Will the REAL Slim Shady please stand up....

No really ...... will the real Slim Shady ....... PLEASE stand up.......

Make yourself obvious......

Gimme a clue?

That's what was running as I woke up this morning....... AS I WOKE UP .... it's not enough I dream Genealogy ... nah....  I have to make it my constant thoughts......... 

Even though I'm finding all sorts of amazing things on each sides of the families ....  you run into that brick wall....... and slam, the door shuts......

Or you find hints with two different names......   was it Robert Warren or Richard Warren .....  ugh, so frustrating - because it MAKES a difference!!!

No no ....  let me tell you the best one.

You are trying to find the parents for Hannah Monroe (I'm just making these up) ...  she was born in 1521 ....  and yet, the "hints" on other peoples family trees have her parents listed as Rose Hart born in 1854 and Richard Monroe born in 1892  .......  um, something doesn't make sense here (and they are NOT always that obvious!) ......

I mean really ........ is it that hard to realize that if the names are right, the years are wrong - or not put anything in there at all CUZ YOU JUST DON'T KNOW......

Sometimes I can be a happy clicker ... click click clicking away and I'm going back through the trees going ....... what the heck???  That doesn't make sense......... and 3000 years gets deleted because I see something that doesn't make sense and want to make sure things are right.

Genealogy is fun.......