Bartholomew Applegate
M, b. circa 1623
     Bartholomew was born circa 1623 probably at County Norfolk, England. He was the son of Thomas & Elizabeth [Wall] Applegate.1 Some time before 1635, he immigrated with his parents from England. They first setled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. While in Weymouth, his mother was sentenced by the court to have her tongue confined by cleft stick because of what they believed to be rough language. The family removed to Rhode Island in 1640 to escape the tyranny of the Puritans. On 12 November 1646, the family removed to Gravesend on Long Island. While there, his father spent much time in the public stocks outside Lady Moody's door.2 Bartholomew married Anna Patrick, daughter of Captain Daniel Patrick and Anna van Beyeren, in October 1650 at Gravesend, Kings County. On 6 November 1671, the govenor ordered 10 pounds to be paid by certain individuals toward the release of Hanna Apelgate & her child, 5 pounds in red cloth. It is thought that this was payment to release her from capitivity by the Indians. Some time in the 1670's, the family resided in Manmouth County, New Jersey where they were listed among the first settlers who came from Long Island.3,4 Bartholomew departed this life at Monmouth County, New Jersey.
see: http://mccurdyfamilylineage.com/ancestry/p242.htm#i32921

1892Children:
1. Sarah Applegate
2. William Applegate
3. Ebenezer Applegate
4. Samuel Applegate
5. Thomas Applegate
6. Hannah Applegate
7. Mary Applegate,   d. Aft 1696
8. Daniel Applegate,   b. Abt 1652,   d. 1710, Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, USA
9. John Applegate,   b. Bef 29 Jan 1657,   d. Aft 12 Jan 1687, Oyster Bay, New York, USA
10. Benjamin Applegate,   b. Abt 1661
11. Jacob Applegate,   b. Abt 1663
12. Bartholomew Applegate,   b. Abt 1670

------------

2351Bartholomew Applegate, born c1620; died probably in the 1690's. He was probably the oldest child. He married in Oct 1650 to Hannah Patrick of Gravesend, daughter of Capt. Daniel Patrick (killed in Stamford, Conn. by Hans Frederick ) and Anneken ( VanBeyeren ) Patrick(died Apr.1656 in Flushing, NY. (After Daniel Patrick's death, she married Tobias Feacke ). In 1650, Bartholomew completed with William Wilkins, a tide mill on Strom Kiln. Over the next 25 years, Bartholomew's name appears from time to time in the records of Gravesend (Stillwell, p.3). One of these records indicated that his wife Hannah and child were apparently abducted by the Indians and were ransomed with red cloth. On Mar. 7, 1674, Bartholomew Applegate ( Appelgadt ), Thomas Applegate ( Bartholomew's brother ), and Richard Sadler were granted permission to purchase lands from the Indians, near the Neversinks, in East Jersey. However, this was contested in April by John Bowne and Richard Hartshorne who filed notice that the grant was an infringement of their patent. The Council ordered them to prove their claim with six months, but by that time, the English had taken over the country and it was necesary to reapply for a new warrent from those in power. In 1684, Bartholomew was in Sussex Co., Delaware and was cited as delinquent in working on the hiways(Some Records of Sussex Co., Delaware. C.H.S. Turner. Philadelphia, Allan, Land, and Scott. 1909. p116). In 1685/86, the rights of Bartholomew Applegate for 200 acres of land at the Falls of the Shrewsbury were vested in Col. Lewis Morris. Later on, he was believed whaling off the coast of New Jersey.
------------

1892From 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