FOURTH GENERATION

FOURTH GENERATION

9. HESTER4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), daughter of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was born on 8 Mar 1711 and baptized on 29 Apr 1711 in the French Church, New York City. Her birth probably occurred at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, NY. She married, prior to 1737/8 JOHANNES LEWIS, son of Col. Leonard Lewis and Elizabeth Hardenbergh. Johannes is also commonly called John.

Hester received Lot #3 of her father’s farm when her mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752. On 6 May 1755, John and Hester conveyed 3 acres, 1 rood, and 37 perches of the westernmost part of Lot #3 to Henry Livingston. On 19 May 1757, they conveyed for £265 the remainder of the western portion of Lot #3 to Livingston. The disposition of the eastern portion of Lot #3 is not known.

On 22 Aug 1753, John purchased for £160 from his brother-in-law John Vanderburgh, Lot #4 of the original estate. Two years later on 6 May 1755, John and Hester conveyed the portion of Lot #4 West of the King’s Road for £108, 7 pence to Henry Livingston. Further disposition of the eastern portion of Lot #4 is not known.

John made out his will on 9 Jun 1752, but the probate date is unknown. He may be the John Lewis who is mentioned as "deceased" among the 1766 members of the New Hackensack Dutch Church. Children:

(LEWIS surname)

i.Catrina, bapt. 21 Jan 1739 in the Reformed Dutch Church at Kingston,

NY.. She may have died young since she is not mentioned in her

father’s will.

ii.Francis, mentioned in father’s will.

iiiElizabeth, bapt. 1 Apr 1743 in the Reformed Dutch Church at

Poughkeepsie, NY.

iv.Leonard, mentioned in father’s will.

v.Henry, mentioned in father’s will.

vi.John, mentioned in father’s will.

10. ANNA MARY4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), daughter of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was baptized on 12 Apr 1713 at the Reformed Dutch Church in New York City. Her birth probably occurred in Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, NY. Anna married BALTUS/BALTHAZAR VAN KLEECK in Dec 1735. The marriage was performed in Poughkeepsie by Francis Filkins, a justice of the peace. Baltus was baptized at Kingston, Ulster Co., NY on 8 Feb 1713, the son of Johannes Van Kleeck and Aaltjen Bos.

Anna Maria received Lot #2 of her father’s farm when her mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752. On 2 Sep 1752, Baltus and Anna Mary conveyed the westernmost portion of the lot to Henry Livingston. On 6 Oct 1752, Baltus conveyed to John Lewis, his brother-in-law, for £40, 20 acres of the easternmost portion of Lot #2. This deed also implies that Baltus had sold the remaining 20 acres of the eastern portion of the lot to his brother-in-law, Henry Vanderburgh, Jr.

Anna was buried at New York City on 11 Jul 1763. Baltus was buried there on 9 Apr 1775. Children:

(VAN KLEECK surname)

i.Alida; bapt. 31 Aug 1742 at Poughkeepsie; m. 31 Dec 1764

Louis DuBois; d. at Poughkeepsie 4 Mar 1824 at age 80 or 81. She

was received in the Poughkeepsie Reformed Dutch Church on 13 Apr

1815. Children:

(DUBOIS surname)

i.Elias, bapt. 4 May 1766, m.(1) 10 May 1787 Jacomyntje

Van Benschoten (d. 1787), m. (2) pre 1792 Hannah

Haff, d. 23 Jun 1842.

ii.Catherine, b. 24 Jan 1768, bapt. 31 Jan 1768, d. young.

iii.Johannes, bapt. 15 May 1769.

iv.Catherine, b. 24 Sep 1775.

v.James

vi.Simon

ii.Tryntje/Catherine, bapt. 2 Sep 1744 in the First Reformed Church,

Fishkill, NY.

iii.John Lawrence; b. 5 May 1747; m. Jane Viele; d. at Spencer, NY on 22

Jul 1820. Children:

(VAN KLEECK surname)

i.James, b. 1793.

ii.Asa Dearborn, m. Frances Emelia Sexton.

iv.Jacobus, bapt. 15 Dec 1754 Reformed Dutch Church, New York City.

v.Peter

vi. Magdalena

11. RICHARD4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), son of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was baptized on 18 May 1715 at the French Church in New York City. His birth probably occurred at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, NY. He was a blacksmith who received Lot #7 of his father’s farm when his mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752. On 27 Jun 1753, for £73, 11 shillings, 2 pence, he sold the portion of this lot west of the King’s Road to Henry Livingston. Another deed dated 8 Jul 1777 implies that the eastern portion of Lot #7 had been sold to Jacob Van Bunschoten.

Richard was probably married twice. The identification of Richard’s first wife is uncertain. She may have been ALIDA VAN KLEECK, but no proof of her existence has been found. In his will, Richard mentions his wife, Mary. She is MARY EVERITT of Poughkeepsie who married Richard on 7 Oct 1753 in one of the Presbyterian Churches in Rumbout and Poughkeepsie. It is improbable that Mary was the mother of at least two of Richard’s daughters, since they were married by the time Richard made out his will in 1769. At this point, if they had been daughters of Mary, they would have barely been teenagers at most. Most probably, Richard had a first wife by whom he had at least two daughters.

Richard resided in the town of Poughkeepsie, and during his life was subject to many claims of indebtedness and at least one of fraud. The first of these claims was filed in the Dutchess Inferior Court of Common Pleas in Oct 1738. On 23 Mar 1738, Lawrance Gerbrantz purchased from Richard for £5, 2 shillings, and 6 pence, "one roan stone horse" that was warranted "to be a good able working horse." On 24 March, "Lawrance tried to work the horse in the plow (as is desireable with another horse). The roan horse was found to be very lazy and totally unfit..." After several more attempts to work with the horse, Lawrance found again "the horse to be lazy and quite contrary to agreement and warranty." As a result, Lawrance tried to return the horse to Richard and get his money back. But Richard refused. Therefore, in Oct 1738 Lawrance brought suit against Richard for costs and damages totaling £12.

During 1752 and 1753, Richard was sued no less than three times for failure to pay for goods and merchandises that he had received. These suits included: failure to pay Warman Duncan for goods received on 20 May 1751 - sued for £9; failure to pay Elizabeth Allen for goods received on 10 Jun 1751 - sued for £5; and failure to pay Clare Everitt for goods he had purchased on 2 Jun 1748 and still refused to pay as late as 1 Mar 1753. As a result, Clare sued Richard in Oct 1753 for £14.

Richard stayed out of court until 1760. On 6 Mar of that year, he settled outstanding accounts for the years 1756 and 1758 with Henry Livingston. This time, Richard came out the better, receiving the balance of 14 shillings and two pence from Livingston.

By 1765, Richard fell on hard times. On 29 Jan 1765, Richard made a promissory note with James Wines for £5, 15 shillings, and six pence. When Richard failed to pay off the note, with interest, by 1 Mar 1765, James brought suit against him in May of that year for £10. Richard signed another promissory note with Moses Barlow for £26 on 23 Apr 1765. This too he failed to pay by the due date of 10 Jun 1765. On July first, Richard refused to pay Moses, and Moses sued him for the full amount. In another suit involving Moses Barlow in May 1767, the court ordered Richard to reimburse Moses £8, 8 shillings, and 3 pence.

Richard last appeared in court in 1768, this time as a bail bondsman for John Low. On 8 Jan 1768, the High Sheriff of Dutchess County had apprehended John Low and Tounis Cursa. They were to appear in court on 3 May 1768. Richard, as bondsman for Low, agreed to pay the court £30 if Low did not meet his court date. Because John Low failed to make his court appearance, Richard was sued for the £30 on 18 Dec 1768.

Richard’s will was made out on 13 May 1769 and probated on 24 Aug 1769. His wife, Mary was still living on 23 Nov 1802, when she appeared before Ebenezer Clark, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Washington, Co., NY. At this time, she attested to the validity of the signature of her brother-in-law, William Vanderburgh, on Dutchess County deed 18:53, signed 8 Apr 1768. Children of Richard Vanderburgh:

i.Leanah, m. Thomas Pooley.

ii.Sarah, m. 3 May 1762 Thomas Freer.

iii.Richard, bapt. 15 Jun 1755, probably d. before 1769.

iv.William, bapt. 21 Feb 1759, probably d. before 1769.

21.v.Jacob, m. 2 Nov 1788 Cornelia Swartwout, d. prior to 1815.

vi.Mary

12. HENRY4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), son of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was baptized on 3 Apr 1717 in the Reformed Dutch Church at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, NY. He married about 1739 SARAH VAN KLEECK. Sara was baptized on 21 Nov 1722, the daughter of Johannes Van Kleeck (1680-1754) and Aeltje Terbosch.

Henry lived in Poughkeepsie on lands that he bought and inherited from his father. On 22 Jun 1743, deed 2:558, he paid his father £70 for 96 acres of land and farm that he occupied along the Hudson River, south of the rest of his father’s estate. This property also bordered land of Elias Van Bunschoten that Elias had bought from Henry’s father. On 13 May 1747, deed 3:22, Henry conveyed his entire 96 acre parcel to Ephraim DuBoys for £130. Ephraim, in turn, on 22 Apr 1752, deed 3:26, for £156 conveyed the same to Henry Livingston.

In deed 5:24, Henry received Lot #1 of his father’s farm when his mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752. On this lot, Henry made his permanent home, probably occupying the original house that his father had built. No further Dutchess County deeds are found for Henry after he received this inheritance. On 4 Jun 1771, this property was assessed at £6, and taxed £3, 16 shillings.

Henry was a farmer and a Dutchess County Justice of the Inferior Court until 1777. He was a senior and junior warden of Poughkeepsie’s Christ Church in 1776 and 1777 respectively, of which the Rev. John Beardsley was rector and Bartholomew Crannell a warden.

With the advent of the Revolutionary War, Henry’s sympathies were strongly Loyalist. In a deposition made on 3 Feb 1787, he stated that "he was required by the rebels to join them, to take oaths, and to sign associations, all of which he refused as he was well satisfied with the British Government and wished to remain under it."

Because of these sympathies, Henry came under scrutiny of the Committee for Detecting Conspiracies. In 1776, a resolution of the Convention of the State of New York established this Committee in Dutchess County and other counties to identify persons who were involved in "divers treasonable conspiracies against this State and the liberties of America ..." The Convention was particularly concerned about identifying those Dutchess County loyalists who were "seducing many of the inhabitants thereof from their allegiance to this State, and inlisting [sic] them in the service of the King of Great Britian."

The Committee met at Fishkill on 17 Oct 1776 and identified 114 Dutchess County inhabitants who it felt were "notoriously disaffected and inimical to the measures pursuing for the safety and defence of the United States of America." Henry was included among these persons, detained, and sent as a prisoner to Exeter, New Hampshire. His confinement at Exeter lasted a short time. Henry stated that he "was recalled by the Provincial Congress of New York, and was offered the Oath of Fidelity to the States," which he refused. When the Committee met in Fishkill at Connor’s Tavern on 3 Jan 1777, they were informed that Henry and four others had returned home. The Committee directed that Henry and the others appear before them and produce their permits that allowed them to return home.

Continuation of Henry’s involvement in those troubled times appears in a deposition given by Stephen Hendrickson to the Committee on 24 May 1777. Hendrickson stated that he met Vanderburgh about eight weeks ago at about eight o’clock in the evening on the road between Fishkill and Poughkeepsie. Henry mistook Hendrickson for Abraham Fardon, and made the comment "the matter I was going to reveal to you, it is not prudent for me to mention till I hear farther about it." Hendrickson wasn’t sure what Henry was talking about and insisted repeatedly that Henry tell him what he meant. Henry finally revealed to Hendrickson before they parted company "that a man had been to press his waggon, which he told him he could not have, his son being out with it." Evidently, this was another incident in which Henry refused to help the rebel cause and continued to rouse the anger of the Committee. On that same day, 24 May 1777, Henry was apprehended, brought before the Committee and ordered that he be confined to the house of Mr. Everit until further ordered.

Henry probably never agreed to take the oath of allegiance to New York State, as did his friend the Reverend Mr. John Beardsley of the Episcopal Church in Poughkeepsie. On 7 June 1777, Rev. Beardsley appeared before the commission for detecting conspiracies and again refused to take the oath of allegiance. Beardsley was ordered to remain on his farm until he received further instructions, but was permitted to go visit the sick and baptize infants if requested. The assistant commissioners, Peter Tappen and Andrew Billings, wrote to the Council of Safety requesting an order for the removal of Mr. Beardsley and family to New York. At this same time they probably asked for the removal of Henry and his family as well, for when Tappen and Billings received no response regarding Beardsley’s removal, they again wrote:

"... advise whether Mr. Beardsley and Van Den Burgh

are at liberty to sell effects to pay just debts due to

the inhabitants where the bargains were made previous to

the order for their departure, as application has been

made to us, and what are we to do with such goods as can

be made appear were the property, or given to the children

of Mr. Berdsley some years past. We expect they will depart

in two or three days."

The expectations of Tappen and Billings were more than optimistic, for a number of months would pass before the Vanderburgh and Beardsley families would receive permission to leave Dutchess County.

On 30 Jun 1777, James William Payne appeared before the Committee. He stated that during his captivity on Long Island, he met Richard Everit of Dutchess County. Everit gave him a list containing names of several persons, whom Everit assured him, were ready to take up arms against the country, whenever the enemy should penetrate into Dutchess County. Payne recalled that the list contained the names of "a Number of the name of Vanderbergh." No doubt, this was Henry and his family. The next day, Tuesday, 1 July 1777, the Committee "Resolved, that Henry Vanderburgh Esqr & Obadiah Griffin be conveyed to Esopus to be confined on Board the Fleet Prison there ‘till the farther Order of this Board or untill they shall be thence otherwise delivered by due Course of Law."

Henry was confined aboard the prison ship for about four months. When the British forces captured Fort Montgomery in Oct 1777, the prisoners were evacuated from the Hudson River and marched toward Boston. Henry "escaped on the march and lived in the woods near his own house for some time. But was obliged from his age & infirmity to surrender himself & was Banished ..." On 13 Dec 1777, George Clinton, Governor of the State of New York, finally responded to the request of Tappen and Billings and granted written permission for Henry to be delivered within the British Lines at New York City. Henry went under a truce aboard a sloop owned and sailed by Capt. Robert North. Accompanying Henry were his wife, Sarah, two daughters, Sarah and Hester, and two grandchildren, including wearing apparel, bedding and provisions for the trip. Also accompanying them was the Rev. Mr. John Beardsley and family.

While exiled to the New York City area, Henry supported a petition of Martin Dob on 20 Aug 1781, when he acknowledged Martin’s loyalty to the crown. By Jan 1782, Henry was granted an allowance for distressed loyalists who took refuge within the British lines at New York. Henry initially received £10, 10 shillings. By 1783, this allowance had increased to £25 per quarter.

Henry, his wife and probably one child, found refuge in King’s County with Abraham Van Ranst or Randt who, as a proprietor, provided Henry with two rooms and 15 acres. They were still residing in this environment in 1783 when they were planning for their departure to the St. John River in New Brunswick [then Nova Scotia.]

As the war drew to a close, the British government initiated plans to evacuate Tories to new locations. Present day Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were prime sites for those who had been temporarily exiled to New York City and Long Island. The civilian evacuation was a cooperative effort among several private Loyalist organizations and the British military. Refugees had to join the private organization and conform to regulations imposed by military authorities.

Preparations were well underway in February 1783 for six major fleets of British Government-provided vessels to carry loyal exiles from Long Island to Nova Scotia. To facilitate embarkation of the refugees, the private organizations divided their parties into manageable companies. Each company had a leader who was commissioned as a militia officer by Sir Guy Carleton.

Henry and his son, Richard planned to take their families with them and depart with the June fleet in Capt. Peter Berton’s Company on the ship "LITTLEDALE." The company muster for Berton’s Company taken at New York depicts them as saying that they would go with Berton’s group to the River St. John. Henry is identified as "Judg Vandborg," a Dutchess County farmer, whose family consisted of himself, one adult woman, one child over ten and one servant. The "LITTLEDALE" set sail from New York on 16 Jun 1783 with Richard and his family. However, Henry remained behind due to illness.

In Sep 1783, Henry was still within the British lines when he sent a petition regarding his loss of pension to Sir Guy Carleton, the British Commander-in-Chief in America. In the petition Henry stated that he:

"... hitherto received a pension from government of twenty

five pounds currency quarterly, the two last from Mr. Coffin

and in expectation of its being continued he yesterday waited

on him to receive payment for the last quarter, when he was

informed his name was struck of the list and that there was not

anything for him in his hands."

Henry went on to state that he did not know the reason that he had been struck from the list of refugees. He surmised it was because of "his subscribing last May to go to the River St. John’s in Capt. Bartoon’s Company." Since he did not leave as planned, he felt that he may have been dropped from the refugee list. Henry did not leave as planned for Nova Scotia because "nothing but sickness and Bodily infirmities thro’ the whole of the Summer prevented him embracing that oppertunity, as well as several since." Hoping that was the case, Henry requested that his "pension be continued to him to enable him to discharge the debts his long sickness has obliged him to contract before he leaves this Place which he expects will be in the Coarse of a few days." His pension was apparently restored by an order of 20 Sep 1783.

Henry was fortunate to have his pension restored as quickly it was. As early as 1776, the British Treasury inaugurated the policy of making payments to Loyalist refugees who had incurred losses in America. But the methods were faulty and the results unsatisfactory. Consequently, in 1778 the Treasury notified Gen. Carleton that it would pay no more money on account of Loyalist losses until a further investigation had been made of the matter. Thenceforth Loyalist claims were carefully investigated, and any payments made thereafter took the form of temporary allowances.

Henry’s son, Richard summarized his father’s plight in a 16 Dec 1779 certification sent to Commissioners in England who were investigating losses of American Loyalists:

"I do Certify that my Father Henry Vanderburgh was one of

the Judges of Dutchess County in the Province of New York, and

that as early as the Year 1776 at which time for his unshaken

Loyalty he was made prisoner by the Rebels in Asopus Creek, and

put on Board a Galley, where he remained for one year, and was

then removed to Exeter Goal, where he remained for nine months

after which he was removed to Poukeepsky Jail where he suffered

another close confinement for six months, which with the

confiscation of his Estates and property, that were very

considerable there, as well as in Orange County, threw him into

an Insanity of mind, already sunk as deep in the Vale of

affliction as of Years, in which condition the Rebel General

Clinton sent him to New York where he now remains in a State of

poverty, unable to support himself or assist his family,

therefore hope thro’ his Majesty’s bounty I may be enabled to

Relieve the necessities of a distrest and suffering parent"

With his health improved and his pension restored, Henry remained true to his word to Gen. Carleton and prepared for embarkation to New Brunswick.

Henry and his family sailed on the ship "JOHN and JANE" from New York on 4 Oct 1783 and arrived at the River St. John on 17 Oct 1783. Eight ships carried the refugees in 11 militia companies. The "JOHN and JANE" contained two militia companies, #40 headed by Robert Campbell containing 43+ persons, and #46 headed by James Thorne containing 134 persons - including Henry and his family. The embarkation muster for James Thorne’s company on board the "JOHN and JANE" dated at New York 23 Sep 1783 lists Henry with a family that consisted of himself, one adult woman, three children 10 or older, and one child under 10. However, a "Charity" list was made out at the same time, recommending to the government those who should receive unspecified special allowances. These lists recommended about 2/3 of everyone in Thorne’s company, but not Henry. On this "Charity" list, Catherine Hutchinson appears, with one child ten or over and one child below ten. Beside her name is written "Enterd in Henry Vanderburgh’s family." This almost certainly means that she was a relative of Henry’s, for if she were just travelling under his protection she would have been listed as a separate household in the main company muster as other women were. Yet, she was definitely a household head because her particular subset of Henry’s group is listed for charity. Therefore, Henry’s actual family included himself and two children. What connection Catherine Hutchinson had to Henry has not been discovered.

If the adult woman listed in Henry’s muster role was Catherine Hutchinson, then Henry’s wife was not included. This implies that his wife, Sarah, may have died before he left for New Brunswick.

By early November, Henry had relocated upriver at Maugerville in Sunbury County where three of his sons, Richard, Peter, and Henry, Jr. had preceded him. Maugerville had been established by English settlers from New England around 1762.

In February or early March 1785, Henry and his son, Henry, Jr., along with two others, were living across the St. John River from Maugerville, in Burton, Sunbury County when they jointly appealed to Gov. Thomas Carleton of New Brunswick for parcels of land. They stated that they:

"... arived in this Province near two years ago with their

Families expecting to draw lands but have received none.

Your Memorialists Prays for Lotts no. 22 belonging to Isaac

Stickney no. 23 belonging to Jacob Barker and 25 belonging to

Joseph Barker, who have their Lands all assigned them in

Maugerville and no. 36 in possession of Doctor Lalley an old

inhabitant of Burton who has two Lotts in Burton aforesaid."

They requested that these lots, which they understood had been taken back by the government, would be granted to them. Henry requested lot #36, and Henry, Jr. lot #22. On 25 Mar 1785, the New Brunswick Council that reviewed such affairs decided that the "lots appear to be in the possession of persons whose Title Government have not been able to examine the validity of -." On 12 Aug 1785 the Council decided that Henry, Sr. would receive lot #22 containing 85 acres. This decision was later confirmed in a grant dated 13 Jan 1787. In this grant, Henry, his two sons, Henry Junior and Richard, and 51 others were granted lots numbered 1 through 51 in Burton, Sunbury County.

Not long after the 1785 decision of the Council, Henry relocated to the City of St. John. Henry was definitely settled at St. John by early 1786. In this year, Henry, along with Thomas Menzies, James Gordon, and Samuel Willard, were assigned "to be Justices of the County of Saint John in our Province of New Brunswick in America ..."

On 6 Apr 1786, Henry completed his move from Burton to St. John by selling his lot #22 in Burton to his son John for £75. John also lived in St. John. By the time of the sale, the lot consisted of 150 acres with 40 rods fronting on the St. John River.

While in St. John, Henry initiated efforts to recoup some of his losses in Dutchess County caused by the Revolutionary War. On 15 Mar 1786, Henry submitted a claim at St. John for over£.770 worth of moveable property which he had lost at the hands of the rebels. Included in his inventory were: one ironbound wagon and two horses; 300 bushels of wheat; 100 bushels each of rye, Indian corn, and buckwheat; 18 acres of wheat on the ground, and eight tons of English hay; seven milk cows, three heifers, and 25 sheep; and various items of farm equipment, household furniture, and £345 worth of damage done to the timber on his farm.

By 3 Feb 1787, when he made his claim for real property losses, he was living in Conway, about four miles from St. John across the Grand Bay. In his claim filed at St. John, Henry "Says that his Lands were not confiscated, but being Banished he was glad to sell them at a very low price. But that when sent into the Lines with his family he left all his Personal Property; that all his moveables were seized by the Rebel Committee & ... soon after sold." "His farm was 145 acres; he sold it in the year 1783, before he left New York for £555 cury. [currency]; before the war he thinks it was worth £900." Henry’s real property claim totalled .345. This 145 acre farm probably included Lot #1 of his father’s original property; land directly north of lot #1 which is implied by Dutchess County deed 5:24; and 20 acres of Lot #2 which he evidently purchased from his brother-in-law Baltus Van Kleeck between 19 Aug 1752 and 6 Oct 1752 as implied in deed 4:381.

Life did not get any easier for Henry while living in the St. John area. On the first Tuesday in May 1787 during the Easter Term at Fredericton, Stephen Bedell, through his attorney Ward Chipman, appeared in court bringing a bill against Henry and his son, Henry, Jr. Bedell complained that the Vanderburghs, on 11 Sep 1786, at the City of Saint John, were indebted to him for £56, 12s., 6d. for work and labor that Bedell performed for them. The Vanderburghs refused to pay the debt, causing Bedell to sue them for the debt and damages amounting to £100. The Vanderburghs were represented in their defense by attorney, Bartholomew Crannel, their fellow exile from Dutchess County. The Vanderburghs said "that they did not assume upon themselves ..." the committment to Bedell.

On the third Tuesday in July 1787, a jury heard the suit. The jurors decided that "... Henry Vanderburgh and Henry Vanderburgh Junior did undertake in manner and form as ... Stephen Bedell within complained against them ..." They assessed the damages to Bedell at £47, 16s., 4 pence 1/2 penny and costs and charges at six pence.

Over a year later, Henry Sr. and Henry, Jr. had not complied with the court’s decision for payment to Bedell. On 4 Sep 1788 from Fredericton, Henry’s son, Richard, wrote to Ward Chipman at St. John regarding the outstanding debt:

"Sr.

I shall take it as a particular favour if you will send

me an Acct. of what money is due on the Lawsuit of my father

and Bidele and on the receipt thereof I will send an Order on

Sand and Whitlock for the balance. I am Sr. Your

most hble Servt

Richard Vanderburgh

Richard was probably clearing up his father’s affairs, since by the time Richard wrote his request, his father had left New Brunswick and resettled back home in the Poughkeepsie area. When Henry actually left New Brunswick is not certain. However, by 19 Jan 1788, he was back in Poughkeepsie. On this date, Myndert Van Kleeck sold Henry £41, 17 shillings, and 11 pence worth of goods. For some reason, Henry was reluctant to pay for the merchandise. After several unsuccessful attempts to receive payment, Myndert brought suit against Henry in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas on 19 May 1788. The suit was for a total of £70 which included damages claimed by Myndert as well as the unreceived payments. On 14 May 1788, Henry also found himself involved in other court actions. This time, he was in court filing an indebtedness claim for £20 against Jacobus Ostrom.

Henry’s next court appearance was a legal attempt for restitution for his real and personal property losses suffered during the revolution. At the Dutchess County Court of Common Pleas, on 10 Oct 1788, Henry Vanderburgh entered a suit versus Henry Livingston, Jr. No details of the suit are given. However, this court appearance coincides with Ancient Document #12536 which bears a date of the "October Term of 1788." This document was probably presented to the court and contains the details of the suit. In it, Henry complains that Henry Livingston, Jr. on 13 Dec 1777 at Poughkeepsie, "with force and arms at the farm and house of the Henry Vandeburgh broke and entered and took his house and farm and unlawfully ousted him from 13 Dec 1777 until 13 Dec 1783."

After Livingston took possession of the farm and house, he rented both and kept the rents and profits for his own use. Vanderburgh stated that Livingston "committed by his defaults & negligence the said farm and house with their appertunances to fall into great decay dissuse waste ..." and the "... farm and house are endangered in the sale thereof and have injury to the value of four hundred pounds ..."

Concerning his personal property, Vanderburgh also claimed that Livingston "did then and there take and carry away and the same did sell and dispose of and the monies arising therefrom received and to his own proper use converted ..." and "... that injuries to him then and there did against the peace of the people of the state of New York to the damage of the said Henry Vandeburgh of six hundred pounds and therefore he produces the suit." Attorney Anthony Hoffman represented Vanderburgh in the suit.

Subsequent court records do not reveal any action on the suit until Friday, 21 Jan 1791. On that date, Henry Livingston, Jr. appeared in a court action against "Henry VanDeburgh." The court "Ordered that the plantif bring on the trial of this cause the first day of next term or non pross." The Court of Common Pleas sat in May 1791, but there is no record of Henry Vanderburgh appearing as instructed during the previous session. During the court session on Tuesday, 11 Oct 1791 the last documented action appears in the court records. The court "Ordered judgement against the plantif [Henry Vanderburgh] in this cause as in cases of non suit for not bringing on the trial of this cause according to the practise of this Court." This action apparently terminated Henry’s claims.

A year after his last court appearance, Henry died in Poughkeepsie. He is recorded in the "Poughkeepsie Journal" of 5 Apr 1792 as "departed this last week, Henry Vanderburgh, Esq., of this town. He was formerly a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for this county." Children:

22.i.Magdalena, bapt. 8 May 1740, m. 8 Jun 1760 James Young.

23.ii.Aeltje/Alida, b. 7 Dec 1741, m. 16 Sep 1758 Wines Manney,

d. 18 Feb 1817.

24.iii.Henry, m. ca. 1792 Rachel Yerry, d. post 1810 but pre 1820.

25.iv.John, m. [?Keziah Higby], d. ca. 1791.

26.v.Richard, m.(1) (license 22 Apr 1782) Syntje/Cichey (Bogaert) Rapaljie,

m.(2) after 1799 Sarah ______.

27.vi.Trintje, m. pre 1775 William Forbes.

28.vii.Peter H., bapt. 23 Feb 1755, m. 25 Aug 1774 Neeltje Dutcher, d. 27 Oct

1839.

29.viii.Elizabeth, b. 13 Oct 1759, m. 23 Aug 1775 Teunis Van Benschoten,

d. 31 Dec 1819.

30.ix.Hester, m. ca. 1791 Enos Bussey.

31.x.Sarah

13. JOHN4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), son of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was born on 6 Feb 1721, probably a Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, New York and was baptized on 18 Jun 1721 at the French Church in New York City. John received lot #4 of his father’s farm in Poughkeekpsie when his mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752.

John was a cordwainer [shoemaker] and yeoman, who married sometime before 1739 ELIZABETH LOW Her identity is based on strong circumstantial evidence. Her first name is recorded with John when they sold John’s inherited property on 22 Aug 1753. In this transaction, John and his wife, Elizabeth, conveyed the entire 68 acres of lot #4 for £160 to his brother-in-law, John Lewis. When their daughter, Sara, had a son, Johannes, baptized on 12 Feb 1769, the sponsors at the baptism were "Johannes Vanderburg and Elizabeth Low, his wife."

After the sale of his inherited property, John relocated permanently to the eastern boundaries of Poughkeepsie Precinct. Here, John’s farm initially contained at least 91 acres. The farm lay in the town of Poughkeepsie within the limits of a tract originally granted to Francis Rombout & company. The northwest side of the property was 500 rods from Wappinger’s Creek and was commonly called the parallel line. Governor Cadwallader Colden first traced this northwest line around 1730 and a few years later the line was again run by Col. Clinton, father of Governor George Clinton, of New York. When Col. Clinton ran the line it extended considerably farther to the northwest, in some places 1/4 of a mile. In most instances Clinton’s line was acceeded to in subsequent land transfers.

The parcel that John Vanderburgh eventually possessed had been sold by the VanDenBogert family to Peter Van Kleeck, the son of Balthazer Van Kleeck. After Peter Van Kleeck died, his widow married Francis Filkin. Eventually, Filkin’s heirs (including Bartholomew Crannell) sold it in a 1750 deed to Johannis Van Kleeck, son of the aforementioned Peter Van Kleeck’s brother Johannes. Johnannis soon after sold it to his younger brother, Lawrence, who mortgaged it to his older brother, Peter. This older brother, Peter owned a tract adjoining what would become John Vanderburgh’s property. The mortgage was subsequently made over to Augustus Van Horn who foreclosed the equity of redemption and sold the premises to John Vanderburgh. This transaction probably occurred prior to 14 Aug 1765 since John Vanderburgh’s boundaries are mentioned in deed 4:412 of that date.

John Vanderburgh appears on the town of Poughkeepsie’s tax rolls for 4 Jun 1771, where his assessment was eight pounds, and his tax was £1 and 18 shillings.

By the late 1780s and early 1790s John’s financial assets permitted him to hold several mortgages. On 29 Dec 1787 Frederick Street and his wife, Katherine, were "bound" to John Vanderburgh for £300. They used their property in Washington Precinct as surety. The mortgage was settled by 7 May 1791. On 14 Sep 1791, John W. Allen and his wife, Catren, of Clinton Town mortgaged to John for £60, part of land in Great Nine Partners lot #8 totalling 50 acres. This mortgage was cancelled on 14 Jul 1802 by Richard Everitt who administered the late John Vanderburgh’s estate.

John’s wife, Elizabeth died in Poughkeepsie early in July 1796. John died intestate in Poughkeepsie during early March 1800 "after a long and painful illness ... at an advanced age."

John Vanderburgh’s house is depicted on a 1799 map made by Henry Livingston, Jr. At that date, John’s house stood on the north side of present day Hooker Avenue. When Livingston drew his map, the road was known as "the road to John Vanderburgh’s." "Originally, the house was an attractive eighteenth century farm house with an excellent carved doorway and fanlight." A house, known as the "Murphy Place," located on the property of Vassar College near the intersection of Hooker Avenue and Cedar Avenue was originally part of John Vanderburgh’s estate. Whether the "Murphy Place" is the original house of John Vanderburgh has not been determined.

John and his wife are probably buried in a Vanderburgh burial plot that is described in 1924 as "Southeast of the city of Poughkeepsie, in an orchard near the east fence of the property of the Hudson River Driving Park Association. At one time, the burial ground contained many stones, but by 1911 there were only nine gravestones which were fallen and broken." This plot originally measured 70 feet along Cedar Ave, and 40 feet deep. The present day burial plot still remains adjacent to Cedar Avenue but in worse condition than in 1911. Children:

i.

Henry; b. ca. 1739; m. 26 Dec 1779 Elizabeth Everitt in the

Dutch Reformed Church at Poughkeepsie; d. 9 Nov 1821 and

buried in the family burial ground. Henry lived in

Poughkeepsie and probably had no children. His wife probably

died prior to 1801. In his will F-257 dated 6 Nov 1818, and

probated 18 Jan 1822, he mentions no wife or children. The only

heirs he mentions are his brother Peter, and Peter’s son,

Abraham.

ii.

Magdalen, m. 5 Jul 1800 James Gothard, d. 1815/16.

32.iii.

John, Jr., living in 1772, d. prior to 1801.

33.iv.

Sara, m. 3 May 1762 Hendrick Pels, d. prior to 1801.

34.v.

Peter, b. 1745(?), m. pre 1780 Elizabeth Meserole.

35.vi.

Hester, m. 17 Nov 1770 Richard Everitt, d. prior to 1801.

14. PETER4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), son of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church at Poughkeepsie on 11 Sep 1723. In the same church during 14 March 1745/6, he married ELIZABETH TABER of Westchester County.

When Peter’s mother divided the home farm among all her children on 19 Aug 1752, Peter opted for cash instead. All his other surviving siblings received portions of the farm.

In 1746/7, Peter was a constable in Poughkeepsie. However, his main occupation appears to have been that of a mariner who plied his trade along the Hudson River. He was a trusted agent for Henry Beekman of Rhinebeck and New York City who mentions Peter several times in correspondence to his nephew, Henry Livingston of Dutchess County. On 17 Jun 1751, Henry Beekman, then in Rhinebeck wrote that he had "received by Peter Vanderburgh according to your memoranda 200 bushel wheat from you ..." In a 13 Dec 1751 letter, Peter was entrusted with carrying certificates from Mr. Beekman, now in New York City to Henry Livingston. Other correspondence from Henry Beekman in New York City mentioned Peter as a courier: of mail on 19 Feb 1751/52; of mail "with £30 in Spanish Dollars" on 13 Mar 1752; and of more money on 19 Mar 1752 when Beekman stated "I delivered in the hands of Peter Vanderburgh 75 Spanish Dollars & took his receipt for delivery thereof to Henry Livingston."

On 13 Apr 1752, Henry Beekman acknowledged to his nephew: "Yours of the 8 by P. V. Derburgh, am glad you have rec’d the money I sent by him." On 6 May 1752, Henry Beekman responded to Livingston: "Yours of 2 May by Vanderburgh whom I have not seen yet: if I can understand your leter, you would have me to pay him £50, which I shall do----" .... [signed Henry Beekman, then postscript:] "Shall send by Petr. Vander Burgh £100 in cash & you may pay him..."

In a 7 May 1752 letter, Beekman sent "by Peter Vandenburgh one hundred pounds for which [I] have his receipt." Almost a year later, Peter was still providing service to Beekman and Livingston when in a 30 Jan 1753 letter, Beekman wrote: "Yours received by Peter V. D. Burg, by whom [I] send you [the] last votes, as [well as] newspapers."

Two years later, Peter apparently left the commerce of the Hudson River and opted to serve with the military forces in the French and Indian War. Peter served in the New York Provincial Troops. As Captain Peter Vanderburgh, he mustered a company of 78 foot-soldiers at Poughkeepsie on 11 Jul 1755 for service in a northern campaign. He was evidently killed in fighting near Lake George and died intestate on 21 Aug 1755. An administration bond dated 11 Oct 1755 cited Peter’s next of kin, Henry Vanderburgh of Poughkeepsie, as principal creditor.

As the administrator of Peter’s estate, Henry was sued for £20 due Clear Everitt from Peter’s estate. Peter had been indebted to Clear for £12, 12 shillings, and 2 pence since 24 Apr 1754. Peter had also incurred an additional unpaid debt when he bought a "parcell of yarn" from Clear on 27 Apr 1754, but had not paid for it. Clear had tried to collect his money from Henry on 1 Oct 1755, but Henry refused. As a result, Clear filed suit.

Peter and Elizabeth probably had at least the following children:

36.i.

Mary, b. 13 Nov 1745, m. ca. 1763 Rezin Geer, d. 12 Mar 1814.

ii.

Magdalena, bapt. 10 Nov 1751, m. before 1779 John

Pride. John Pride was the keeper of the "Half-Way" House

north of Poughkeepsie in 1780. Children:

(PRIDE surname)

i.

Mary, b. 17 May 1779, bapt. 9 Apr 1780.

ii.

Catherine, b. 17 May 1783, bapt. 10 Aug 1783.

37.iii.

John, bapt. 14 Apr 1754; m. prior to 1780 Elizabeth Gardener,

d. 14 Mar 1838.

38.iv.

Stephen, m. 24 Aug 1783 Ann Doughty.

15. SUSANNA4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), daughter of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was baptized on 1 Jun 1725 in the Reformed Dutch Church at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, New York. She received Lot #5 of her father’s farm when her mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752. She subsequently sold this lot to Johannis Freer for £115 on 29/30 May 1755. On 15 Dec 1756, John Freer conveyed for £67 to Henry Livingston, the western portion of Lot #5.

Susanna married, first, on 16 Apr 1743 ELIAS DUBOIS, son of Louis DuBois and Jannetje Van Vliet. Elias had been baptized at Kingston, NY on 8 Apr 1722; and was a captain in the French and Indian Wars. Susanna and Elias were living at "Wappinger’s Creek" in 1755. Elias died at Albany on 24 Jul 1756 while on an expedition to Crown Point, NY. Susanna married, second, circa 1758, RICHARD LEWIS. Richard was the son of Thomas Lewis and Anna Maria Vanderburgh, thereby making Susanna and Richard first cousins.

After their marriage, it appears that Richard and Susanna probably settled for a short time in the Poughkeepsie area, possibly near New Hackensack, where their oldest son was baptized in Sep 1759. Afterwards, Richard and Susanna removed from Poughkeepsie to New York City. Richard may be the one recorded as a freeman in New York City in 1760 as a merchant, and in 1765 as a laborer. They were both definitely in New York in 1764 and had come to stay based on Susanna’s removal certificate from Poughkeepsie: "Susanna van den Burg, h.v.v. Dirk Lieuwes, met attestatie van Pakeepsie .... N. York Den 20 Feb. 1764." Their association with the Reformed Dutch Church at New York had begun with the baptism of their daughter, Sara, on 12 Jan 1764 and continued through 13 May 1787 when Richard and Susanna were witnesses at the baptism of Philip Werner.

Richard and Susanna were still in NYC in 1789 when they sold land in Ulster Co., NY to Henry Dubois of Poughkeepsie, probably Susanna’s son. This deed ends the documented certainty of Susanna and Richard’s life. Speculation surrounds Richard’s life and whereabouts thereafter. Because other Richard Lewis’s appear in Dutchess and Ulster Counties, NY during the latter half of the 18th century, enough data has not been uncovered to identify them or untangle them from Susanna’s husband.

The next appearance of Richard may be in 1800, back in Dutchess County. In 1800, a Richard Lewis was living in the town of Clinton. The 1800 census reveals the following:

Males - under 10 - 3

Females - 16 - 26 - 1

10 - 16 - 1

26 - 45 - 1

45 & over - 1

Assuming this is the correct Richard, it could also be assumed that this is the same Richard, now a merchant of Poughkeepise, who married at New York City on 11 Feb 1806 Mrs. Stilliford of New York City. This marriage might also be coincidental with a property purchased on the north side of Cannon Street in Poughkeepsie that a Richard Lewis made in Poughkeepsie on 20 Apr 1806.

The year prior to this marriage, Richard may be the person whose will, dated 26 Oct 1805, is recorded in Dutchess County, NY. The will was proved on 4 Jun 1814, thereby making it very possible that it was the same Richard who died on 31 Mar 1810 at the age of 82 years. Children of Susannah Vanderburgh:

Children by Elias DuBois

(DUBOIS surname)

39.i.

Lewis, b. 16 Aug 1744, bapt. 2 Sep 1744 in the First Reformed

Church, Fishkill, NY.

ii.

Magdalen, b. May 1746.

iii.

Henry, b. 13 Oct 1748, died young.

iv.

Garret, b. 17 Feb 1751.

v.

Jain [Jannetje], b. 2 Jun 1753.

40.vi.

Henry, b. 26 Jul 1755.

Children by Richard Lewis

(LEWIS surname)

vii.

Thomas, b. 16 Feb 1759, bapt. 24 Sep 1759 at the Reformed Dutch

Church, New Hackensack, Dutchess County, NY.

41.viii.

Susannah, b. 25 Mar 1761, m. 28 Feb 1779 Gilbert Livingston,

d. 27 Jul 1822.

42.ix.

Sarah, b. 15 Oct 1763, bapt. 12 Jan 1764 at the Reformed Dutch

Church in New York City, m. 10 Jul 1780 John Terbush.

x.

James/Jakobus, b. 19 Mar 1766, bapt. 23 Apr 1766 at the

Reformed Dutch Church in New York City.

xi.

Mary, b. 30 Mar 1768, m. 28 Jul 1783 James Reynolds.

xii.

Elizabeth, b. 29 Aug 1772, bapt. 27 Sep 1772 at the Reformed

Dutch Church in New York City.

16. MAGDALEN4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Henry1), daughter of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was born, probably in Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, NY, about May 1727. She was three months old when she was baptized at the Lutheran Church in New York City between 20 Aug and 20 Sep 1727. In Jan 1744/45, she married CLEAR EVERITT. The marriage was performed by Francis Filkins, justice of the peace, in Poughkeepsie. Clear, son of Richard Everitt and Mary ______, was born about 1716.

Magdalen received Lot #9 of her father’s farm when her mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752. This lot lay on either side of the Albany New York Post Road, not far north of the Specken Kill. However, they probably lived most of their lives in the city of Poughkeepsie. Clear "... built the historic `Clear Everitt House,’ still standing [1897] on the main street in Poughkeepsie, and now known as the `Washington Hotel.’ This house, evidently an hostelry, was the meeting place of the leading men of the Revolution, Governor Clinton, Lafayette and Washington being among its guests."

Clear was involved in many Poughkeepsie area land transactions during the middle of the 18th century. Several of these included: buying (1750) 1394 acres in the Rochdale neighborhood; buying (1759) and selling (1764) the "Upper Landing;" various transactions in the "Vlackie" in Rombout Precinct; and Pine Street in Poughkeepsie.

Poughkeepsie Tax Lists from Feb 1744/5 through June 1779 (34 years) record Clear’s rise and decline in prosperity. In 1744/45, he was assessed at £2. This assessment rose steadily each year: £4, £10, £9, £10, £12, £18, £20, £22, £23, £25, £26, £34, £36, and £32 to a high of £38 in 1760. The following years chronicle his assessments as: £32, £20, £17, £8, £6, £3, and £2 to a low of £1 in 1779.

Clear was appointed coroner of Dutchess County on 22 Oct 1751. In 1754, he was appointed sheriff of Dutchess County and served in the post through 1760 when he was succeeded by James G. Livingston.

Clear died on 2 Jul 1790 in his 74th year. His wife, Magdalen died in 1801. Children:

(EVERITT surname)

i.

Maria, b. ca. 1745, m. bonds 5 Oct 1763 Hugh Van Kleeck.

Children:

(VANKLEECK surname)

i.

Ahureas, bapt. 16 Feb 1765.

ii.

Magdalena, bapt. 28 Dec 1766.

iii.

Henricus, b. 31 [sic] Apr 1769, bapt. 11 Jun

1769.

iv.

Jannetje, b. 28 Nov 1772, bapt. 10 Jan 1773

at New Hackensack.

43.ii.

Richard, b. 1749, m.(1) [his first cousin] 1770 Hester

Vanderburgh, m.(2) Abigail DeGraaf, d. 2 Oct 1824

[sic P.J. of 6 Oct 1824 says 21 Sep 1824], age 75 years, 2 months,

and 5 days. [See Hester Vanderburgh, daughter of John

Vanderburgh and Elizabeth Low for this family.]

iii.

Magdalin, b. ca. 1750, m. 10 Feb 1765 Teunis Corsa.

iv.

Martha, m. Elias Freer.

v.

Elizabeth, b. 1760, m. 26 Dec 1779 Henry Vanderburgh,

her first cousin. No children. [See Henry Vanderburgh, son of

John Vanderburgh and Elizabeth Low for more information.]

vi.

Clear, Jr. [A Clear Everitt was in Beekman in 1790 as

1-0-2, next to George Emigh the 1st and John Emigh

the 3rd. In 1800, he was listed as 0-0-0-0-1 and

0-1-0-0-1 and was next to Solomon Kronkrite and

Abraham Klyne. There are no land listings, but a

Peter Everitt was a witness in Beekman in 1817,

perhaps a son [M 23:608]. Also, a Clear Everitt

signed the Articles of Association in Beekman and

served in the 5th Regiment of Dutchess County for

which he received land bounty rights. One service

was 19 days in Sep and Oct 1777 in Humphrey’s

Regiment for which he received £1/13/4.]

17. JAMES4 VANDERBURGH (Henry3, Dirck2, Lucas1), son of Henry Vanderburgh and Magdalena Knight, was born in early Aug 1729, probably at Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, NY. He was baptized on 21 Sep 1729 at the age of six weeks. The baptism took place at "P. Lassing’s" and is recorded in the records of the Lutheran Church of New York City. James received Lot #6 of his father’s farm in deed 5:3 when his mother divided the property among her children on 19 Aug 1752. On 27 May 1755, deed 3:152, James conveyed the entire lot for £135 to Henry Livingston.

On 29 Sep 1753, James married MARGARET NOXON. Margaret was baptized on 9 Feb 1735, the daughter of Bartholomew Noxon and Elizabeth Pasco of Beekman, Dutchess Co., NY.

James and his wife settled in Beekman on a tract of land about one-quarter of a mile northeast of the village of Poughquag on the road to Gardiner Hollow. James built the first substantial house in that vicinity. It was built of stone and wood with a broad, covered veranda across the front, and the basement contained quarters for slaves. This house remained standing for over one hundred years, but was finally torn down in 1860.

In Beekman, James farmed, kept an inn, and had a general store. The inn was a popular resting spot and provided accommodations for many years. On 7 Sep 1762, Berian Brown, Christopher Gardiner and Benoni Gardner left Kingstown, RI on horseback for a journey to the Susquehannah River. On 12 Sep, they "went to James Van de Barrah’s ... and turned out our horses, and tarried all night." After breakfast at the inn the following morning, they resumed their journey. On their return trip, they stopped again at the inn on 21 Sep 1762. They remained there through the 22nd and departed for home on the 23rd. The hospitality at Vanderburgh’s inn must have been accommodating, since this was the only spot on their journey that the three travelers stopped for more than one night.

George Washington was also a visitor at the inn, probably at least twice in each of the months of March and May 1781, on trips to Rhode Island and Connecticut, respectively.

James was active in Beekman’s church and civil affairs his entire life. These activities included: town clerk of Beekman Precinct in 1761 and 1765; poor master 1765-1766, and 1768-1774; assessor 1766-1774; supervisor of Beekman 1775-1779; and inspector of intestate estates 1782 and 1784-1791. His civil activities included activity in Beekman Precinct Meetings. During the meeting of 2 Apr 1776, James, along with four others, comprised a committee to "Draw up some Prudential Laws Relative to heighth & sufficiency for fences within this Precinct ..." The meeting members unanimously approved their actions.

James took part in the initial efforts to establish a church in Beekman. Rev. John Beardsley, the original pastor of the Christ Episcopal Church of Poughkeepsie established on 9 Mar 1773, had ministered in Beekman from at least 1766. In May 1767, James, among other Beekman residents, organized a congregation in Beekman but it disbanded in 1774.

On 9 Aug 1766, James’ wife, Margaret, died "between the hours of 3 and 4 in the morning, being the 8th day of her sickness" leaving him with seven children. A year later he married, on 25 Oct 1767, HELENA CLARK.

When the Revolutionary War became inevitable, James sided with the cause of the colonists. When the 5th Regiment of Dutchess County Militia was raised in Beekman’s precinct and commissions were issued for it on 17 Oct 1775, the original regimental officers were Col. William Humphrey and Lt. Col. James Vanderburgh. The next month on 7 & 8 Nov 1775, deputies were elected to represent Dutchess County at the Provincal Congress which was to meet on 14 Nov in New York City. James was chosen as a delegate.

By the summer of 1776, James and his regiment were actively involved in military activities. On 9 Jun 1776, the 5th Dutchess, with five companies, was attached to Brig. Gen. John Morin Scott’s Brigade in Maj. Gen. Israel Putnam’s Division stationed at King’s Bridge, New York. By 27 Jun 1776, the five companies were reassigned to Fort Montgomery. In Aug, the 5th Militia was encamped at Greenwich, CT. November 1776 found the militia with 314 men in Brig. Gen. James Clinton’s Brigade assigned to Forts Constitution and Montgomery. On 5 Dec 1776, enlistments and levies ran out and the regiment disbanded at Fort Montgomery.

Clinton raised an alarm that regiments were disbanding. Gen. Washington contacted the New York Convention for help. "The Convention, meeting in Fishkill, in responding to an urgent plea from General Washington, ordered 21 Dec 1776, that the entire militia units from Dutchess, Westchester, and part of Albany march to North Castle [NY]." The 5th Dutchess heeded the call and in Jan 1777 was called out to watch Westchester County from Peekskill, NY. In Feb, it "protected or maintained Westchester County allegiance to the `Rebel’ cause and securing important forage."

In Aug 1777, the militia was "ordered to Albany; however, only 74 of 394 drafted men were willing to march northward towards Saratoga and the British Army led by Gen. Burgoyne." In Sep 1777, "men not willing to march were fined in Peekskill." In Oct, the militia was stationed at Fishkill.

How much personal action James saw in the war up to this point is not certain. But James’ home in Poughquag was an important wartime center for military stores and supplies. Col. Hughes recognized not only the importance of the area, but also the risks that the stores implied. He was particularly concerned with the safety of New York Governor George Clinton’s wife when he wrote to the governor on 11 Oct 1777: "It is my humble opinion that your Lady & Friends are too near our Stores, which are at Col. Vandenbargh’s." Two years later, these important stores were still intact when "a return of a part of the Brigade of Dutchess County Militia commanded by Col. Jacobus Swartout dated Camp Highlands 7 Jun 1779 noted `40 men properly officered of Colo. V.D.Burgh’s Regt. Guarding the Stores at his House.’"

The reluctance of the 5th Militia to advance to Albany during the latter half of 1777 indicated a serious morale problem and probably led to the replacement of Col. Humphrey as its commander. On 10 March 1778, James was promoted to full Colonel and took command of the Fifth Regiment. However, James’ promotion was not without opposition. Captain Jonathan Dennis was obviously against the promotion when he expressed his concerns in a letter to New York Governor and Commander in Chief, George Clinton:

"I understand there is likely to be Considerable of an

Alteration in Col: Humphrey’s Ridgt. Concerning Officers, By

a Late Return Made by Lt. Col. Vanderburgh which Return was

made Without the Old Gentleman Having any agency in the

matter, Which if Should take Place will be Very Disagreeable

to the Ridgt. in General, Altho’ its impossible to Please

Every Body in Such Cases, if the Matter has not Past the

board of Appointment For that Purpose, Should it be agreeable

to Your Pleasure to Consult Col. Humphrey Further upon the

Matter, For the Publick’s Good, Will be a Singular Favour; as

For my Part I have not any Private Prejudice against any Person

or Publick View But as one Individual with Esteem to the

Publick’s Good, Conclude the Publick’s Sincere Friend and your

Most Humble Serv’t. [Signed] Jona. Dennis, Beekmans Precinct,

23 March 1778."

George Clinton replied from Poughkeepsie on 24 March 1778:

"Sir, I am this Moment favoured with your Letter of the

23rd Instant. It is some days since the Council of Appointment

compleated the Appointments of Officers for your Regiment, tho

not altogether agreable to the Returns made by Colo. Humphrey or

that made by Colo. Vanderburgh & the other Field Officers of the

Regiment. It was my wish that Colo. Umphrey when he handed me

his Return would have staid the Evening & attend the Council of

Appointment. I asked him to do it but he declined. This being

the case I could only lay his return with what he mentioned to

me before the Council which was faithfully done. I am Etc.

[signed] George Clinton."

Now a commander of his own "rebel" regiment, Col. James still maintained a compassion for his countrymen who remained loyal to the British flag. In one particular instance he and 25 other Beekman neighbors petitioned New York Gov. Clinton to stay the execution of James Essmond who was under sentence of death for loyalist activities. The petitioners wrote:

"Beekman’s precinct May 25th 1778"

May it Please Your Excellency. Whereas James Essmond

(now under sentence of Death in Albany Gaol) Went about Two

years since from Beekman’s Precinct, where the subscribers

were for a number of years personally acquainted with him,

& ever look’d upon him to be (tho’ Poor), an honest laborious

man, as was his former Character from Long Islnad, as far as

we have ever heard, altho’ he was of a wavering Disposition,

Easily seduced & fond of merry Company. Not being acquainted

with the Facts respecting his later Conduct, we doubt not in

the least that his sentence is just, Being fully perswaded that

a man’s true Character in every situation of Life is justly his

Due, nor conceiving this attempt will at all Interfere with the

just proceedings of the Honorable Court by which he was

Condemned, at the Request of some of his worthy Relatives we

beg leave to offer the above to your Canded Consideration, & to

subscribe ourselves,

Your Excellency’s most humble & most obedient servants."

In Sep 1778 James Vanderburgh was in command of a number of companies at Fort Clinton. From 31 May 1779 - 22 Jun 1779, his regiment served in the Highlands in Swartout’s Brigade. However, several of the muster returns for Jun 1779 show that James was not with his regiment. This is the period in which the building of fortifications and forts in the Highlands occurred.

The turbulent times of the revolutionary period also saw internal strife among those who championed the pro-American cause. James Vanderburgh did not escape this strife. In the early Summer of 1779, he complained to Gen. Washington regarding the conduct of Lieutenant Colonel Charles Armand-Tuffin. Col. Armand had evidently been a less than hospitable guest while at the Vanderburgh home. Washington wrote from his headquarters on 28 Jun 1779 to Armand:

Sir: You will without delay march your corps toward

Bedford, to join the troops at or near that place under the

command of Colonel Moylan. You are not for the present to go

with the corps yourself, but to send it with the officer next in

command, as there is a complaint of a serious nature against you

made by Mr. Vandeburgh a very respectable inhabitant of this

state, which will oblige me to have an inquiry into the affair.

I am extremely sorry any thing of this kind should have

happened; but it is not in my power to be inattentive to the

representations of the inhabitants when they complain of

violences committed by officers of the army. So soon as I

receive the specific charges, they shall be communicated to

you. Till then you will remain in this vicinity. I am,

etc."

Washington directed that an enquiry be made into the charges against Armand. The enquiry results were contained in General Orders, dated 5 Aug 1779, given from Washington’s headquarters at Moores House:

"The Court of Inquiry whereof Colonel Clark was President

appointed to inquire into certain complaints exhibited against Colo.

Armand by Colonel Vandeburgh and Mr. Jonas Adams of this State, beg

leave to report to the Commander in Chief as their opinion: `That

the complaints exhibited against Colonel Armand by Colonel Vandeburgh

and Mr. Adams are so far supported as to render a trial necessary.’

The Commander in Chief directs a General Court Martial to sit at

the usual place tomorrow morning ten o’clock for the trial of Colonel

Armand. Colonel Stewart to preside...."

Alexander Hamilton wrote to Colonel Armand notifying him that the findings of the Court of Inquiry warranted a court martial. Armand responded in writing on 21 Aug 1779 from Kingsbridge, NY:

"Monsieur,

I arrived last night from near Kingsbridge; General Howe

wanting to have the latest news of the enemy, I found myself

obliged to take a long trip, for these reasons I only received

your letter this morning and I am hurrying to answer it.

Mr. Vanderburgh agrees, you say, that the judgement of the

court martial be made on the report of the Court of Inquiry.

You are kind enough to ask me if I am of the same feeling. Up

to then, the terms seemed equal enough with the exception being,

while I have the humiliation of seeing myself continually at the

wishes of Mr. Vanderburgh: who I don’t value at all. But this

court martial obliges me to a condition, that now shows me to

the public as the slave of Vanderburgh. This condition is that

during the court proceedings, I must consider myself under

arrest, and consequently can’t continue to command my men,

whereas Vanderburgh has the right to behave like an important

man and seems to punish me as he pleases.

While under this authority [Court Martial] my men cannot

face the enemy, which is unpleasant, for this has the tendency

to dishonor me, I find myself forced to await precise orders

from his Excellency to abandon my command, for it has never been

customary in any army in the world, that the feud between an

honorable officer and a man of disrepute such as Mr.

Vanderburgh, would suspend the officer’s command without

determining which of the two is right. While waiting for a

decision, I will stay at a post less to the forefront. Here are

my true feelings on this story and I will tell it as freely in

public as at this moment that I confide it to your friendship.

1. Mr. Vanderburgh is a contemptuous person, not because

his son, who is the person who insulted me, but because he holds

the insult of his son as if he had done a very good deed.

2. I am French, they hate us, they like to hang us here in

this country, with the exception of two or three, that the

politics often unjust or blind in such case, has elevated them

to a level where they have the right to humiliate others. The

more we serve, the better we serve, and more severe are the

proceedings of a people too young yet to understand the

political skill necessary to hide their natural hate. Too many

examples up to today were unfortunate omens of that which we

must hope for in the future. You know yourself, my dear friend

these things as well as I, against the customs of all nations to

equal rights, the foreigner is convicted here in this country.

This is the biggest favor that they give to him: like me - I

expect the least, I warn you that I cannot leave for one instant

the command of my troops, without leaving your service.

I will not bother myself with any of the affairs of Mr.

Vanderburgh, he can do what pleases him, what he wants to do; he

is a being that I despise too much to put myself on an equal

footing with him, no matter what time or circumstance that be.

If a court martial breaks me, I will be broken; if it

blames me, I will be blamed; without being breakable or

blameable.

Lastly, the goodness that his Excellency has honored me,

the respect which I have for him, and the pleasure of having

found in you a real friend, will always be for me an honorable

excuse for having traveled so long in a country whose first

principle is the hate that it carries for me.

I wait with impatience the end of this story, and submit

myself to the orders, desires, and judgement of his Excellence,

the general.

I am very angry that General Howe can imagine that I

merited them taking away my command while I am in front of the

enemy. I have proof that he doesn’t want to take my command

away.

My infantry comported itself with much bravery two days

ago; the calvary didn’t have the opportunity to fire. The

tories did a lot of destruction here, yesterday they kidnapped

one of my men with Capt. Berth’s horse, I arrested the man at

whose house the blow was given and who not only let it happen

but did not come to warn us. This was a Tory of much

reputation.

I have the honor of being with sentiment and the sincere

respect for it.

My dear Colonel, your obedient servant Armand."

I request you send back to me this letter, and that of

General Sullivan, that you have had for some time.

You do not say that this is life without respect, for you

know yourself that this Vanderburgh caused me enough trouble,

and it is most amusing that he bases his right on an insult that

his son gave me. After this example, it isn’t up to a newcomer

to take away the command of an officer, no matter who.

Be aware my dear Colonel that I generally have the same

feelings for your country as for mine. I don’t understand men

well bred and educated, those that know that the rights of one

man are the rights of all men, without thought for the country

that he is from, goodby.

As perhaps it is necessary that I give my consent in

english, for betrayed without a new examination of the witness,

and upon the proceedings of the Court of enquiry, this is to

certify that I give my consent and approbation, to every things

that you Col. Hamilton shall consent to in my name and shall do,

in the same.

Armand.

The results of Armand’s court martial were contained in General Orders given at Headquarters, Moores House [Yorktown, VA] on Tuesday, 31 Aug 1779:

"At a General Court Martial of the line whereof Colonel

Stewart was President held at West Point the 25th instant,

Colonel Armand was tried upon the following charges:

For 1st. During Colonel Armand’s stay at Colonel

Vandeburgh’s house (which was about two hours), he with sundry

of his officers in a most atrocious and wanton manner, beat and

abused a son of his, without cause of offence.

Secondly. Putting him [Vanderburgh’s son] under a guard of

two Centinels, giving orders that Vandeburgh, or any other

person should not speak to him, keeping him confined during

their stay, and freightening or compelling him to ask Pardon,

before he was dismissed.

Thirdly. Putting the whole of his family and some

Gentlemen belonging to the Continental Army (during their stay)

in bodily fear.

Fourthly. Knocking off sundry respectable People’s hats

from their heads for no other reason than because they dare to

stand in his presence covered, tho’ some came in promiscuously

on hearing so much noise in the house.

Fifthly. Knocking off Jeremiah Clark’s hat and kicking him

out of his (Armand’s) room, an apartment where he was, for only

requesting Colonel Armand to enlarge [set free] Colo.

Vandeburgh’s son.

The Court do acquit Colonel Armand of the 1st. charge, also

of the 3rd. and 4th. charges; but are of the opinion that he is

guilty of the first part of the 2nd. charge, also of the 5th.

charge, being a breach of the 1st. Article 9th. Section of the

Articles of War. They find him also guilty of the charge

exhibited against him by Jonas Adams, being a breach of the

aforesaid Article and do sentence him unanimously to be

reprimanded in General Orders.

The Confinement of a Citizen by military authority was

irregular and blamable, and there appears to have been an

improper degree of warmth in Colonel Armand’s conduct towards

Clarke and Adams."

Meanwhile, the war continued. Brigade orders of 11 Oct 1779, issued by the governor of New York, requestedd that several units out of Col. Swartout’s Brigade of Militia be detached for three months of service. Included in this call-out was Col. James Vanderburgh’s Regiment for 118 men.

Despite internal and external conflicts that occurred during the war, Colonel James persevered. He used whatever resources and means available to support the American military men. He sold 242 bushels of flour worth .314/0/5 to George Fisher, of Fishkill. George was a baker for the Army from 1777-1779, and borrowed large sums of money to purchase four which he baked into bread and delivered to the Army.

Sometimes, James’ efforts were unpopular when he used his discretionary powers with the local populace. One incident occurred when the teamsters of Beekman’s Precinct "were on the 16th inst. [16 Mar 1780] impress’d by a warrant from James Vanderburgh, Esqr. to transport a load of flour from Mr. Carman’s Mill to Fish Kill to be deliv’d to Nath’el Stevens, Ast. Com. Issues at that post." The teamsters complied with James’ instructions the next day. However, when they reached their destination Stevens and William Betts, A.D.Q.G. directed them to take their loads to other villages and to the camp in the Highlands. Feeling that they were unduly imposed upon, they subsequently made a legitimate complaint to Governor Clinton.

Col. James suffered an embarrassing situation in 1780, when his horse was stolen by the British. His efforts to get the horse became a test case for the new United States government in trying to recover property taken by the British during the war. General Washington appointed commissioners to deal with Sir Guy Carleton, the British Commander, and resolve lost property issues.

On 24 May 1783, Egbert Benson and W.I. Smith, the Commisssioners, wrote to Sir Guy Carleton:

"Sir,

With this we do ourselves the Honor to transmit your Excellency

the Case of James Van DerBurgh Esqr. an Inhabitant of this State and conformable to the Instructions contained in our Commissions it becomes

our Duty to request that your Excellency will please to direct that the claim

of Mr. VanDerBurgh may be inquired into and upon such Inquiry, the facts

as stated should be proved that the Horse may then be delivered to Mr. VanDerBurgh."

The facts presented said:

"Mr. Van DerBurgh had an Horse stolen from him out of his stable

in Beekman’s Precinct in Dutchess County the 26th of Feby. 1780, and the

Horse was conveyed by Persons who stole him to a then British Post in West

Chester County where he has since been detained so that Mr. Van DerBurgh

could not revover him again. The Horse is now in the possession of Colo.

James Delancey in this City - from whom Mr. Van DerBurgh has demanded

him, and has refused to deliver him to Mr. Van DerBurgh."

On 28 May 1783, M. Morgan responded for Carleton to Benson and Smith:

"Gentlemen

I am directed to inform you in answer to your letter of the 24. inst.

that after the most attentive review by the commander in chief of his letter

to the Honble. R.R. Livingston, which has become the declared ground of

your Commission, he is not able (suspending all other considerations) to

perceive, either in that letter, or in any clause for your instructions, any

sufficient authority for your official claiming on behalf of Mr. Vandenberg,

of an horse, stolen or taken in Dutchess County in the year 1780 and which

you do not suggest to be in danger of being presently embarked & carried

away."

The negotiations for Vanderburgh’s horse set a precedent for future dealings between the British and Americans. While Benson and Smith were negotiating with Carleton, Congress, aware of the difficulties involved, was enacting a resolution that stated:

"Whereas by the articles agreed upon the 30th of November last

[1782], by & between the Commissioners of the United States of America

for making peace, and the Commissioners on the part of His Britannic

Majesty, it is stipulated, that His Britannic Majesty shall, with all

convenient speed and without causing any destruction or carrying away

any Negroes or other property of the American Inhabitants, withdraw all

his armies, garrisons and fleets from the said United States, and from every

port, place and harbour within the same. And whereas a considerable

number of Negroes belonging to the Citizens of these States have been

carried off therefrom, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the said Articles.

Resolved,

That copies of the letters between the Commander in Chief and Sir

Guy Carleton, and other papers on this subject be transmitted to the Ministers

Plenipotentiary of these States for negotiating peace in Europe, and that they be

directed to remonstrate therein to the Court of Great Britain, and take proper

measures for obtaining such reparation as the nature of the case will admit.

Ordered,

That a copy of the foregoing Resolve be transmitted to the Commander

in Chief, and that he be directed to continue his Remonstrances to Sir Guy

Carleton, respecting the permitting Negroes belonging to the Citizens of these

States to leave New York, and to insist on the Discontinuance of that measure."

While Congress was formulating the resolution, Benson and Smith, were preparing a report on their frustrating negotiations to General Washington. On 30 May 1783, from New York City, they wrote, in part, to Washington:

"Sir

We would e’er this have done ourselves the honor to have

wrote your Excellency, had any thing occurred making a

communication necesary.

... On the 15th we waited on him [Sir Guy Carleton], and

delivered a copy of our Commissions. He was pleased to express

his satisfaction in the appointment, and gave us assurances of

affording every aid in his powers in the execution of our

Authorities.

... we transmitted to him the enclosures No. 1 and 2, and this

morning we received the answer enclosed No. 3. From the latter,

your Excellency will perceive the Door is closed against every

future attempt to execute that Instruction in the Commission,

requiring us to obtain the delivery of property. For it appears

necessarily inferrable, that no property will be delivered

untill it is, at least, in danger of being carried away or

embarked.

... In the interim between the 15th and 24th, Numbers

applied to us for a restitution of their Negroes and other

property in the possession of others, but we supposed it most

eligible to defer a Requisition ‘till a clear unequivocal case,

similar to that of Mr. Vanderburgh where the proofs were at hand

and not embarassed with the circumstances of a capture in War or

other pretences under which property is withheld here, should

present itself, sensible that if restitution was denied in such

an instance, it would inevitably in every other."

On 2 Jun 1783, from his headquarters, General Washington responded to the Commissioners in New York:

"Gentlemen,

I transmit to you a copy of a Resolution of Congress which

passed the 22d ult. Claiming Property of the United States &c

and remonstrating against sending off Negroes.

The purport of this act you will collect from its perusal.

I have only to request that you would be pleased to pay strict

attention to the Injunctions of Congress contained

therein."

On the same day, 2 Jun 1783, General Washington sent the following to Sir Guy Carleton:

"Sir,

I have the honor to enclose to Your Excellency the copy of

a Resolution of Congress which had been lately transmitted to me

from that honorable body.

Your Excellency will be pleased to notice that purport of

this act, and I am persuaded you will consider it with that

attention which you shall judge the nature of its object

requires."

The Commissioners, Egbert Benson and Daniel Parker, at New York wrote to General Washington on 14 Jun 1783:

"Sir,

We do ourselves the honor to acknowledge the receipt of

your Excellency’s Letter of the 2.d instant, covering the Act

of Congress of the 26th ult.e, and we also do ourselves the

honor to transmit your Excellency a Copy of a Memorial which we

presented to Sir Guy Carleton on monday last, to which we have

not as yet received any answer, except a verbal message by his

Deputy Secretary, that he did not conceive an answer at this

time necessary.

Your Excellency will recollect, that in answering our claim

for Restitution in the Case of Mr. Vanderburgh, Sir Guy Carleton

intimated an impropriety in the claim, as the property was not

suggested to be in danger of being sent away, this left room for

an idea that possibly property about to be sent away would be

restored, and We apprised your Excellency, that We should

take the first fair occasion which should present itself, to

remove all doubt on this point, and with this view we made

requisition in behalf of Mr. Lot; and We conceive it is now

reduced to a certainty, that all applications for the delivery

of property will be fruitless, and We shall therefore desist

from them."

Not only did James Vanderburgh not get his horse back, his was one of the test cases that showed that any American trying to get property returned from the British was out of luck.

The war took its economic toll across the colonies. New York and its counties were no exception. The supervisors of Dutchess County met "at the dwelling House of James Vanderburgh Esquire in Beekmans precinct" on Monday 15 May 1780. "At this special meeting, which lasted at least three days, the Supervisors again had to raise money for the war; this time $511,515, and Pawlings’ share was $45,641."

James was apparently back in wartime action on 5 Jul 1780 when 16 members of his militia were serving at Fort Herkimer. Other members of his Beekman militia, as well as a Pawling militia unit, and others from Dutchess County were called out for constructing barracks at Fishkill.

The Fall of 1780 found more military activity around Col. James’ home in Beekman. "The `New York Journal and General Advertiser’ of 23 Oct 1780 advertised a sale at the Colonel’s house: `To be sold at public vendue on Thursday the 9th instant at the house of Col. James Vanderburgh, in Beekman’s precinct, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon: A number of public HORSES, unfit for present service. --Those who purchase, must pay cash on the delivery of the Horses, unless they produce proper certificates from Colonel Udney Hay, late D.Q. Master, or his assistant D.Q. Masters, for keeping public Horses, since the twenty-fifth of August last, in which case, the amount of such certificates, are to be deducted, and balance to be paid in cash."

Family tradition says that at one time during the war, Col. James returned home due to illness. While confined to bed the Tories attacked the house in an effort to capture him. However, his wife, Helena, barricaded the door with a heavy bedstead and with the help of the slaves defended him so well that the Tories gave up the fight. This story may have evolved from some incidents that occurred in 1781.

In the Spring of 1781, the Tories imposed a danger in Col. Vanderburgh’s neighborhood. This time, three of the enemy were caught and brought to trial. A "New York Packet and American Advertiser" notice in 22 Mar 1781 states: "The following noted thieves, of De Lancey’s corps, were taken on Tuesday last, about two miles from Col. Vanderburgh’s, viz. Familiar, Weeks, and Ackerly; one of their associates, Earl, got off; the other three are safe in goal--- they came with an intent to steal horses." Governor George Clinton referred to the individuals as spies, and on 7 Apr 1781 ordered a court martial to convene: "In Pursuance of the Act entitled `an act subjecting all Persons who shall come out from the Enemy and secretly lurk in any Part of this State to Trials by Courts Martial as Spies.’" On 12 Apr 1781 the Court assembled, and prosecuted Henry Wickes in the name of the People of the State of New York, for "adhereing to the Enemy, and coming out from the Enemy & secretly lurking within a Part of this State." Henry Wickes plead not guilty to the charge. The trial began with Taber Bentley as the first witness. [Note: Taber Bentley was married to James Vanderburgh’s daughter, Elizabeth, by 1785. Whether he was James’ son-in-law at this time in 1781 is not certain.]

"Tabor Bently (sworn).

Question. Were you present Mr. Bently when the Prisoner

before you (Henry Wickes) was taken? No. Where did you see the

Prisoner first? Behind a log. Did it appear to you that he lay

behind the Log with Intention to conceal himself? It did. Q.

Will you please to inform the Court what was the Cause of your

discovering them? I was felling a Tree which was inclining

towards them, or as they (Abraham Wickes, John Vermillier and

Abraham Ackerly) told me, they would not have discovered

themselves to me. On Account of the Danger they were in from

the Falling of the Tree, I was surprised with a Pistol at my

Breast by a certain Earl, one of the Gang who afterwards got

off, and after some Conversation I promised to bring them some

Victuals which they demanded of me.

Q. Do you recollect what passed between you and the

Prisoner in the Conversation you mention? He said there were

some such Men as I was, who pretending to be their Friends,

might betray them, and likewise told me that I should suffer if

I should, & I reply’d that if I brought them out, they might

scalp me. They ask’d me how far it was to Jonathan Denniston’s,

Quakerhill & Colonel Van Deburgh’s and whether Colonel

Vandeburgh was a Friend to his Country.

Q. Did the Prisoner inform you where he came from? From

within the British Lines and said that he belong’d to De

Lancey’s Corps. One of the Party said that he would be damned

if some particular Persons should not suffer before they

returned, and to the best of my Knowledge Wickes said that some

should suffer, by God. One of them (I am not certain who) ask’d

me if I did not expect the Enemy, I answered that they had been

expected for two or three years past; Either Wickes or Ackerly

swore, by God, we should be relieved soon and we might depend on

their coming through this Summer.

Colonel Van Deburgh swore, That he took Henry Wickes

himself, endeavoring as he thought to make his Escape, and after

he presented his Gun at the Prisoner, he call’d for Quarter

[mercy]. That he confessed that he belong’d to De Lancey’s

Corps. That he came from within the British Lines and intended

to return, if he had not been taken in eight or nine Days from

that Time.

Abraham Ackerly, appeared before the Court; The Judge

Advocate prosecuting as in the foregoing Case and the same

Charges being exhibited against him. The prisoner plead not

guilty.

Tabor Bently being sworn.

The 1st 2d 3d and 4th Questions that were ask’d him, being

nearly similar to those put to him in the Case of Wickes, were

answered in the same Manner.

Question. What did Ackerly say to you after your being

surprised by Earl? That they had been driven off, and that he

would be damn’d if some particular Persons did not suffer for it

before he return’d to New York.

Q. Did the Prisoner signify that he was in the Service of

the Enemy? It was the Voice of the Whole of them that they

belong’d to De Lancey’s Corps.

Q. Did he tell you how long it was since he left the

British Lines? Near a Fortnight, and that they were about

returning when they were taken.

Q. Did the Prisoner in particular tell you this? Not that

I recollect, I took it to be the Sense of the Whole of them.

Q. What was t