Notizen zu dieser Person
Over the years, I have interlineated THE HILLS FAMILY IN AMERICA (HFIA) with my notes and research for this family. I have used the HFIA format and information in doing so but have included additional sources and other information. This piece incorporates and expands upon information from Winifred Lovering Holman's DESCENDENTS OF SAMUEL HILLS 1957. Where a name appears with an alphabetical identifier that person does (may) not appear in HFIA. An individual may appear in multiple places- grandfather, father or children's entry. Comments, corrections, more information and records are appreciated. I have included information from disputing sources and my own belief where I have investigated the evidence for a family. Some of my thinking is different from well know genealogists. While I respect their work, I believe that each of us has the obligation to examine the basis for the information of any authority; and if that basis is wanting, to exercise independent judgment. We do have sources available to us and means of research that past family researchers could hardly imagine. In many cases, I have simply presented information from various sources, leaving it up to the reader to make a decision. Some of the listed links are broken but original sources are listed. A version number is used to indicate changes have been made. There is also a date at the end showing the last date entries were made. Version 44- At page 5 THE HILLS FAMILY IN AMERICA 1906 (HFIA) William Sanford Hills and Thomas Hills 3 John2 (William1) b Hartford Conn abt 1648; d (buried at E. Hartford, April 5, 1692). Married at Saybrook, Middlesex Co., Conn; April 14, 1670 Jane Bushnell. Children of John and Jane (Bushnell) Hills: 19 Samuel b Saybrook, May 29, 1671; d before Oct 22, 1753 20 A daughter 21 A daughter Jonathan Hill, aged 28 and Dorothy Hill age 25 testified 1 Sep 1692 that during brother John Hill last sickness he said that when debts were paid his wife should enjoy all the estate for life and what was left at her decease should be divided equally between his two daughters. Inventory taken 20 Aug 1692 by Thomas Kilbourn and Samuel Welles; 45 pounds 10 shillings and 6 pence (Manwaring). Net estate was some 31 pounds. Notes: HFIA states that it had 4 records for John - freeman status in 1699, received property in 1677 -about 31 acres- and 1683- about 20 acres- by gift of his father, marriage in 1670 and probate of 1692. In the 1901 report of the Hills Family Association, it was stated: "... a somewhat lengthly statement of facts were given that almost conclusively proves that a Samuel Hills whose birth was unquestionably born in 1671 was the same person whose birth was of record in Saybrook [son of John Hills and Jane the widow Bushnell Hills] as of that date; that his surname and that of his son Samuel was Hills was proved beyond a doubt, and their descendents of modern times are so designated." HFIA shows that his father William remarried twice more following the death of his first wife Fillis/Phillis Lyman. There were 2 full blooded siblings - Sarah and William- by the first marriage. There were additional half brothers and sisters from the subsequent marriages and stepchildren from the earlier marriages of the two stepmothers. Other records for John- The Winthrop Medical records (pages 88 and 149) place him born about 1644, rather than the 1648 of HFIA. Some researchers place his birth before 1640 but without proof, relying instead on the marriage of his parents abt 1632 and the natural birth order, with John being the last known child of William and Fillis (Lyman) Hills. Other than the Winthrop records, there are no records of the ages of these three children. His mother Fillis was reported to have been sickly and to have gone deaf as a result of her illnesses - Rev John Eliott's journal. His parents married about 1632 and do not show an expected pattern for birth of children- perhaps due to Fillis/Phillis' illness. The marriage shows in Torrey's NEW ENGLAND MARRIAGES BEFORE 1700. Jane Bushnell is listed as widow of John Bushnell who then married John Hills. Also in "Francis Bushnell of Guilford. Conn and His Descendants", compiled by RD Smith and communicated by Bernard C Steiner NEGHS Register Vol 53, April 1899 page 208-214. The Bushnell genealogy THE DESCENDENTS OF WILLIAM BUSHNELL lists Jane the widow of John Bushell having married John Hill(s) of Saybrook and having three children: Samuel and two unknown daughters. HFIA notes that Jane's maiden name and birth date was not identified. Saybrook records show a marriage to Jane Bushnell in April 1670 and the birth of a son Samuel in May 1671. Vol 1 page 42 of Saybrook town records record his purchase of a "..home and home lote of 1 acre and a quarter from Edward Codner, along with 3 acres of land in the planting field and 2 acres of meadow at Raged Rock 16 Nov 1670" The same record reports "John Hills marke 1670 that he puts upon his cattle is a crop upon the tope of each ear and a slott cut down in the crop of the near ear." He sold his Saybrook property (page 54 Saybrook deeds) 27th Feb 1675 to a Mr. Bellamy. "Bought of John Hill his house and home lot consisting of one ack more or loss gining (lying) and being in the towne of Say Brook bounded by John Westall on the east and William Southmaid on the north the highway west and the meeting commons on the South also 2 acres of meadow lying on the north side of William Dudley and John Clark. And also my distedent (dividend) land at Pataqunk with all privileges belonging thereunt as doth more fully appear in a deed of sale under the said Hills hand bearing date with this record." Shows as having served in King Philips War 1675-1677 (SOLDIERS IN KING PHILIPS WAR 1675 by George M Dodge, Boston 1903 pages 51-53) citing to John Hull's account book of Capt Daniel Henchman's Company. Listed as having received a land grant for that service - location not known. Fort Saybrook itself was besieged in King Philip's War with much of the area destroyed. Probate records of the estate of John Bushnell from Suffolk Co., Mass include orders dated 29 Jan 1677-78 (Pub Col Soc 30:885 relating to real estate and rents for a property in Boston) directed to Jane the relic Bushnell state that she returned to Saybrook to the home of her parents and later married John or James Hill(s). Those probate records show Jane received 85-90 pounds as her "thirds". The probate includes other records indicating that one of the children of John and Jane Bushnell was "apprenticed" to avoid being a charge to the town. The probate was reopened again in 1685 following the death of William Bushnell in Saybrook in 1684. William was 17 years old at his death. John sold part of his Hartford lands 21 Jan 1679 to Henry Arnold and more of those lands at a date unknown but prior to 1692 to a Thomas Goodfellow. He is listed in the probate of his father's estate in 1683. By that probate, he received land- about 20 acres- from his father's Hosmore property in Hoccanum, (East Hartford) Connecticut The inventory of John Hills's estate (Vol 5 page 133 Hartford Probate Records) is listed: To his wearing clothes m & u 2=00=00 To 2- 3 yr old steer 5=10=00 to a cow 3=10=00 to 12 yr old heifer 2=00=00 to 16 sheep & lambs 4=00=00 to 8 swine 5=00=00 to pewter 12 and brass 10 1=02=00 to 1 pot and pot hooke 0=12=00 to a box and hickery? 0=03=00 to a table & two chests 0=12=00 to old wheels 2 0=02=00 to featherbed, bolster 2 pillows covering and all 4=00=00 to bed ticking 0=00=00 to 5 old bags 0=06=00 to old barrells 0=05=00 to linins 30 n to wool 12 n 2=02=00 to flax and tow yarns 0=15=00 to Indian corn & oates 0=08=00 to a sine1 and rope 2 0=03=00 to 1 gun powder & bullets 1=00=00 to land 10=00=00 to a testament 0=02=06 45=10=06 In account of what debts is to be paid out of the estate- Thomas Loveland 01=09=00 Thomas Kilburn 00=11=02 Mr Willson 01=01=00 Mr Way 00=10=00 Mr gilbert 01=04=10 for coffin 00=10=00 Mr Gorman 01=03=00 Benj Csari? 00=12=00 Doctor E Hooker 01=16=06 Goodwife Clerk 00=05=00 NathL Smith 00=05=00 Andrew Robre? 03=03=00] Joseph Rowland Jr 00=05=00 Joseph Hill 01=05=00 Jonathan Hill 02=04=06 August 20, 1692 Thomas Kilburn Samuel Wells Below that appears the following listing: One steer 2 year old 2=00=00 One cow 2 year old 2=00=00 one calfe 1 year old 1=10=00 to Wm Hill 0=19=00 John Hill had on wearing clothers 2=05=00 to Nath Goodwire 1=04=00 payd to Mr Gilbert 1=00=00 to the country (rate) 1=00=00 to Mr Wilson 1=10=00 to Samuel Emons 1=10=00 Total 14=09=00 The net estate appears to be 31 pounds 1 shilling and 6 pence. (FHL film #4550) The current value of this estate is somewhere between $600 and $800 dollars. It is worth noting that the inventory does not include a home or home lot. The animals in the estate could have been free roaming in common areas or in the streets of East Hartford at the time. Ownership would have been proven by ear marks. It is possible there was property elsewhere not subject to this probate. He signed deeds and left a testament. Virtually all these entries illustrate the very common problem in doing Hills/Hill research. The name is often written interchangeably with and without the "S" and in spelling variations. The probate of John Hills shows the name as Hill, despite the fact that all the individuals named are connected to the William Hills family of Hartford, Connecticut Savage in his Genealogical Dictionary notes that this family insisted on the final "S" in their name. HFIA put all its information in a wide public challenge asking all doubters to come forth to challenge its conclusions on the Hills genealogy. No one challenged HFIA and its evidence for John and Jane (the relic Bushnell) Hills until Donald Lines Jacobus: "...The name of the second wife of Thomas Adkins (Josiah1) is not mentioned in his probate but on 19 Jan. 1698/9 "Mary Adkins Widdow" relinguished all right in land which Thomas Kilbourn had purchased 1 Nov 1698 from William Buckland and Elizabeth his wife [Connecticut Hist. Society Collections 14:248-9]. Kilbourn's wife was a sister of John Hills, and he had already added to his holdings land which had belonged to John Hills. Since Hills had died in 1692 leaving a widow and two daughters, it appears likely that the sale was made by his daughter and her husband, and that the widow Mary Adkins who relinquished her right in the land was the widow of John Hills. We do not know of any Adkins widow in 1698/9 except the widow of Thomas Adkins who had died in 1694." "The Josiah Adkins Family Of Connecticut" by Donald Lines Jacobus Tag Vol 33, 1957 page 245. In his HALE HOUSE AND RELATED FAMILIES OF THE CONNETICUT RIVER VALLEY, Mr. Jacobus footnote 1 page 582 adds: "1. He [John} was not the John Hill who m at Saybrook 14 Apr. 1670 Jane Bushnell, widow of John Bushnell (1615-1667), a woman of probably over 40 years of age by whom he had one child, Samuel b at Saybrook 29 May 1671. The Hills Family In America (1906) errs in this identification. John of (East) Hartford shows in his provision for wife and two daughters that he had no surviving male issue. The alleged son Samuel was just under the age of 21 when John Hills died and would not have been cut off without mention in his nuncupative will." The Buckland purchase and subsequent release by Mary Adkins shows in Hartford Proprietor Records 1639-1688 page 260 (FHL film #4510) "One parcel of land which he (Thomas Kilborne) purchased of Wm Buckland and Eliza his wife lying on the East side of the Connectictott River, being 8 rod and half in bredth abutting West on Richard Blanchard's land, North on Joseph Henry, South on Richard Keeny and East on land of Ebenezer Hills as may appear on his deed dated the 1st day of Nov 1698, acknowledged the day before Wm Pitkin, Asst (Recorded Jan 19, 1698 (sic)) Mary Adkins, widdow, relinquished all rights, title, claim or interest to the above mentioned parcel of land does fully consent to the sale thereof as appears by writing under her hand and seal witnessed by Tho Ensyne and Samll Peck." Mr Jacobus concludes that "Elizabeth was the heiress of this land and that Mary Adkins was her mother, signing off her dower right." He does not provide a record showing such an inheritance. He clearly appears not to understand dower rights. There has been no published response to the Jacobus position by any researcher. The editor and compiler of HFIA were long deceased by the time of HALE HOUSE. It should be noted right off that John Hills' will of 1692 did not leave his unnamed daughters anything directly. Their rights to any estate asset were contigent on their mother not using up such asset and on their outliving their mother. Lands given to their mother by the probate were given in life estate with a right to invade principal and not limited to dower rights. The will itself is incompatible with the Jacobus theory of both mother and daughter being alive at the same time and with a daughter owning an estate asset. Jacobus clearly must overcome a major hurdle, given the 1692 oral will, to find anything beyond his "appears likely". Mr. Jacobus ended up with "extra", leftover and unknown Hills in his work, indicating his research problems for the Hills family. His Hills research was challenged and altered in part by the recent Anderson work THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGINS. Others have also refuted or rewritten some of his Hills claims and "suggestions". See Mrs. White 1959 TAG article. Mrs. Winifred Lovering Holman in DESCENDENTS OF SAMUEL HILLS also takes the Jacobus position, citing his "very careful work", although she admits that she finds "no proof" despite "exhaustive research". At page 1 "Samuel Hills, birth place and parentage, unknown, aged sixty-two in 1735, hence born in 1673..." Mrs Holman claims that HFIA was "sans evidence" on the matter. The land (1698/9) in question, acccording to research of Gale Ion Harris (TAG 69:174-183 (1994)) may have been purchased by a William1 Buckland prior to his death in 1691 from Thomas Olcott and gifted to their son William2 by the widow Elizabeth (Williams) Buckland (Hartford Deeds 1:304) rather than part of a 1692 probate or any other connection for John Hills. Alternatively, such property was otherwise purchased by a relic Elizabeth Buckland or was otherwise part of the estate of William1 Buckland. There is no other known source of land for this William2 Buckland or his wife apparent from early Hartford deed records. Elizabeth (Williams?) Buckland's deed of 3 Jun 1698 is as follows; "Know by all men by these presents that I Elizabeth Buckland widdow of the colony of Connecticott and township of Hartford for divers good cause and consideration ... but especially naturale love to my son William Buckland of the colony of Connecticott and of Hartford aforementioned have given, granted, and confirmed and do by these presents give, grant and confirm unto him the sd William Buckland, his heirs Excutors administrators or assignes one piece or parcel of upland that I bought of Mr Aaron Cook being and lying on the East side of the Connectictott River and is in the township of Hartford that is to say that part of said lot that lyeth East of the highway be it more or less as to number of acres abbutting west on the highway south on the lands of John Goodwin north on a parcel of land that my husband William Buckland had bought of Thomas Olcott as by a deed will appear and East on land of Mr William Pitkin and one piece of boggy or low land being the west end of that lott that I bought of Mr Aaron Cook to begin at the upland land and forward westward till it meet with the Swamp or Meadow lotts be it more or less to the number of acres abutting the southern end of Nathaniel Goodwin Jr and is on the meadow or Swamp East on the uplands abutting of Elizabeth Buckland, and north on lands belonging to the sd Elizabeth Buckland sometimes belonging to Thomas Olcott." I should note that there is a dispute about whether William1 Buckland's wife was Elizabeth Williams or yet someone else, perhaps Elizabeth Hill. According to Dr. Harris, William1 Buckland was a speculator in East Hartford lands. He lived next door to his father-in-law William Williams. His sisters-in-law included Jane, the first wife of Thomas Adkins. In addition to Jane and Elizabeth, there were two additional Williams sisters-Mary and Ruth. It is within the bounds of speculation that sister Mary Williams may have been Thomas Adkins' second wife or a wife of some other Adkins. Dr Harris believes otherwise, relying on a series of unconnected references to place her as a wife of a much traveled William Briggs; but offers no conclusive proof these references refer to the same person. An issue that often arises in researching early individuals is the repetition of the same given names in the same families in the same areas. It seems that such individuals were distinguished from one another by various references as senior or junior or by use of a nickname or other means. The individual may not have been called by a legal name for much of that person's life, including in legal records. Early records, as well, often have errors, using family name variations. The English language was far more flexible in regards to spelling and other matters than the modern written language. It is also possible that Thomas Adkins' second wife could have been a daughter or stepdaughter of John Hills rather than his widow. Or again a daughter or stepdaughter of John could have been the wife of some Adkins not known to Mr. Jacobus. However, nothing is recorded of these girls even if they, in fact, were his natural children. Stepchildren, as a custom of the time, could have been treated the same as natural children. Or Jane Bushnell may have obligated her husband by a marriage contract to treat certain of her children by John Bushnell as John Hills' own for inheritance purposes. Such a contract would have been common for a propertied widow of that day. The possibilities of one sister releasing an interest in property sold by another may make the most sense from a purely legal point of view. Such an event would explain the lack of other records that presumably would support a distribution from an estate or for various other reasons- including a dower release. However, the sisters could be either Williams, Bushnell. Adkins, Buckland, Cook, Olcott or Hills or some unknown parties. In addition to these possibilities, a purchaser of an "expectancy" or a debt holder as well as an heir of an estate, are other possible explanations that could explain a release of rights by a widow Mary Adkins in 1698-1699. All are legitimate sources of claims against a property. A quit claim deed is a very broad legal tool used to resolve any and all potential claims of whatever sort imaginable impacting land titles. But a quit claim deed by itself will not necessarily explain the nature of the claim released. The effect of not being able to determine the source of Mary Adkins claim to the 1698/1699 Buckland property is that Mr. Jacobus' theory of mother and daughter has to be considered suspect. Further it appears the wife of a William Buckland who was a Hills may have been a grandniece rather than a daughter to John Hills who had died prior to her birth. Various records list Elizabeth Hills of Longmeadow Mass as the wife of William3 not William2 Buckland. This Elizabeth is listed as a daughter of John Hills and his wife Margaret of Longmeadow, Mass rather than John Hills of Saybrook and Hartford. The grave stone for William2 Buckland lists his age as 90 years old in 1724. There is much about this couple that simply does not add up in the face of various records, suggesting that perhaps two or more different couples of the same name may be confused in the records. There is another line of research here that makes the issue yet more confusing. There are genealogies for the Easton family (William Starr Easton DESCENDANTS OF JOSEPH EASTON, HARTFORD,CO 1636-1899) and Butler Family (THE BUTLER GENEALOGY by Ormand Butler Tuttle & Co., Rutland Vt 1934 also references the Easton family records) tracing the ancestry of Lemuel Easton who married in 1754 Elizabeth Buckland, the daughter of Elizabeth Hills and William3 Buckland. Likewise SPENCER FAMILY RECORDS William Henry Spencer, TA Wright Publisher 1907. Those family records agree this Elizabeth (?) Buckland was the daughter of John Hills and Margaret Dix of Longmeadow, Mass; while her husband William3 was the son of William2 Buckland and an Elizabeth Hill (not Hills) daughter of Luke Hill and Mary Hoyt. The 1906 Buckland Family Reunion had a paper read by the Rev Frank Gardener, its president, also repeating that Elizabeth Hills was the wife of William3 Buckland not William2 as argued by Mr Jacobus and Mrs. Holman. The Forbes family similarly record conflicts about their connections to an Elizabeth Hills Buckland. It is of more than passing interesting that some 4 or 5 different families make a claim through to a John Hills by way of his unknown daughters. None can be regarded as proven, however, due to conflicting records. There are records of such disputes going back to early NEGHS "Register" articles and to the Stiles work on early families of Connecticut without a resolution. There have been no primary sources located by any researcher to resolve these various claims. The timing of a number of these claims is long after the death of John Hills b ca 1644 and died 1692. If one assumes for argument sake that John Hills of Saybrook had a daughter Elizabeth through a second wife named Mary, it was likely such Elizabeth was less than 14 years old in 1698-99 and girls of that age rarely married in early colonial times. That conclusion is based on being unable to explain away records of John, his wife Jane, son Samuel and stepson William in Saybrook but not anything of daughters in that town's records up to 1685. Factually, there is no marriage record of any wife Mary, or birth record of any daughters of such a wife or daughters for any wife for this John Hills in Hartford, Saybrook or anywhere else. It is conceiveable that the two girls referenced in his oral will of 1692 were John's stepdaughters rather than his own children. Jane the relic Bushnell had a daughter Elizabeth b 30 Aug 1657 with John Bushnell among other daughters by him: Dorothy b 1651, Sarah b 1653 and Jane b 1662. Elizabeth Bushnell reportedly died in 1662 in Boston but daughters Jane and Sarah were still living at the time of John Hills' death. Oral wills, in the case of the early Hills families, and even written wills have often failed to provide proof of heirs. The custom of the time was for lifetime gifts of an estate to an heir. Such an individual would then be omitted from the subsequent will. John Hills, himself, received a lifetime gift from his father, representing a share in his father's estate. John Hills' sale of his Hartford properties in 1679 and later may reflect such a lifetime gift to an heir. Given that prior provision may have been made for an heir and the small size of the estate, it is not surprising that an heir would be omitted from John's probate. In fact the small estate tends to indicate that probably some provision had been made for an heir prior to John's death. William Hills Sr.'s will made such provision for certain of his sons mandatory. The absence of an heir is also suggestive that there is a difference in blood relation to the listed heirs as well as that the omitted heir may have lived elsewhere. Oral wills are not reliable and today are not allowed by most states except for a military exception. The 1693 oral will of John's brother William omitted heirs and was called "incomplete" by the court, additional heirs were added to those in the oral will of 1693. William Hills Sr's 1683 written will omitted heirs added by the court. Other examples can be readily cited for the Hills and other families of the time. Such wills are considered to have limited probative value by courts. The legal concern is that they are being made at a time when an individual's mind is not clear due to illness or medical treatment; and made when an individual may be open to undue influence from caretakers. Mr. Jacobus himself clearly does not believe that John's 1692 will was correct since his theory of heiresses is so at odds with the plain language of the oral will. During the summer of 2003, I engaged in correspondence and email with Dr. Gale Ion Harris who believes that Jacobus was correct as to Mary and Elizabeth but agrees there is no supporting evidence for the theory. He believes two different properties are involved rather than only one as a source of property for William2 Buckland in the 1698-99 Buckland sale to Thomas Kilborn. Clearly there is some issue as to the description of neighbors in the Buckland deed of 1698-99 when compared to the description for Elizabeth Buckland's earlier deed. However, Dr Harris is unaware of any record of such additional land and was unable to advise of a possible means to locate property records that could support his belief. It should be noted that, according to Dr. Harris, William2 Buckland of 1698-99 was probably not more than 21-23 years old with a wife who was probably a minor. He was one of a number of heirs to an insolvent estate and no major property owner. He left a small estate to his heirs and was a weaver by trade. In other words he started with little and had little in the way of material goods and lands during his lifetime. Moreover, the first three volumes of deeds for Hartford covering the years 1678 to 1732 record only one sale by William Buckland and his wife "Eliza" to Thomas Kilborne who was meticulous in recording his many land transactions, usually referencing any connection to the Hills family in his recorded deeds. Such land records show only one pre- 1698/99 acquisition of land by Mr Buckland- the gift from his mother. Perhaps, he separately inherited from his father; but there is no record of an earlier deed from the estate to William2 Buckland. There is no record of an "Eliza" Buckland, wife of William2 Buckland, among the pre-1698 land records of Hartford, except in connection with this one transaction. Further, John Hills only owned two pieces of property in the Hartford area that are recorded- 31 acres received by his father's gift in 1677 and smaller acreage received by his father's will in 1683; and he made sales from these properties in 1679 and again sometime between 1680 and 1692. None of the properties previously sold to either Arnold or Goodfellow would fit Jacobus's theory of a legacy to a daughter subject to a dower of a wife. The estate lands also don't fit the Jacobus theory since they were not subject to dower. Mr. Jacobus does not provide any record of any land that does fit his theory. It thus appears more Hartford property is being assigned by Jacobus to John's ownership than can be accounted for by actual records. Certainly John's estate inventory reflects only ownership of undeveloped land and a small amount of that. Moreover, that land was given as a life estate with a right to invade principal by his unnamed wife, rather than to the unnamed daughters with the wife retaining dower. I have found no record indicating what happened to such estate land. But there is also no record of any direct gift or legacy by John to any child where his widow would have had dower rights. Mr. Jacobus speculates as to "dower" rights in land that was sold by an heiress. But he doesn't provide a source of that estate nor present a will or any other record giving "Elizabeth" that land. His theory is not consistent with the actual 1692 will of John Hills. In fact, there is some reason to question whether he is even correct on the name of Thomas Adkin's widow based on Manwarring's Probate Records of Connecticut who says the relic's name was Elizabeth rather than Mary. The land given by his mother Elizabeth in Jun 1698 to William2 Buckland was not property from John Hills' estate and was not land John Hills ever owned. Hartford Deed Records from 1678 -1732 and the Proprietor records from 1639-1688 show no Hills - Cook or Olcott transaction of any sort. Mr Olcott was one of the original Hartford proprietors and had his own rights to town lands. The Thomas Kilbourn recording of the 1698-99 release by Mary Adkins references on the same page of Hartford deeds a second parcel that Thomas Kilbourn bought of a Thomas Goodfellow who earlier bought the property from John Hills. But the Buckland property itself is not linked to either the Goodfellow purchase or otherwise specifically described as being property ever owned by John Hills. The deed to the Goodfellow purchase was just recorded at the same time, probably as a simple matter of convenience. The Goodfellow property was not part of John's estate either since the deed shows a sale by John himself. (See Hartford Deeds Vol 1-3 FHL microfilm 4511 and Proprietor Records 1639-1688 FHL film #4510). Perhaps the single recording on the same page and date lead to an unwarranted assumption by Mr. Jacobus. Sgt. Kilbourn/Kilburn was a substantial property owner in East Hartford and elsewhere and bought properties from numerous individuals, including from several of his brothers in laws. Dr. Harris also refers to sloppy legal practice of the times to account for there being no record (gift, deed or probate) of a land transfer by the alleged Hills widow to the alleged heiress; or accounting of the interest of the unnamed second daughter; or of any effort to protect the interest of the probable minor wife Eliza. It should be noted that John's daughters are contigent heirs- their unnamed mother had the sole right to spend all of John's estate as she wished, including the right to leave nothing for the unnamed daughters. It also should be noted that dower rights are not inheritable but are extinguished on the death of a wife. Dower is automatically extinguished by a wife receiving property from a husband. A dower is a lesser right than outright ownership of a property. Mr. Jacobus's case for Elizabeth and Mary rests on something other than a plain reading of John's 1692 will. But no proof is ever presented for the theory. We have only "it appears likely". The theory has too many unaswered questions to be accepted at face value without some corroboration or answer to the questions that the theory and the circumstances raise. Dr. Harris warns against reading too much into the records. It has to be asked if Mr. Jacobus did so? On the face of the deed and release, no relationship of any kind is set forth by the parties to one another or to Mrs. Adkins. There is no specific statement that Mary Adkins was the mother of William2 Buckland, his wife Eliza or anyone else; or any reference that the land being sold was part of any estate; or subject to dower rights. There is no statement as to how the Buckland sellers obtained the property being sold; or of its prior ownership. There is no reference to the name of Mary Adkins' husband. The deed records of Hartford seemingly provide only the single gift by Elizabeth Buckland to William2 Buckland as a source of property that he might have sold in 1698/99. The 1691 probate record of William1 Buckland sugggests that perhaps William2 might have received land from the estate; but that estate was insolvent, having debts greater than assets, according to the inventory. Additionally, William2 was a minor at that time of his father's death. There is no record of any sort as to how "Eliza" Buckland might have obtained land in her own maiden name whatever it might be. I have been advised the issues involve fraud rather than simple malpractice for the transaction described by Mr. Jacobus to make sense. Mr Kilbourn would have been defrauded unless William2 Buckland had good title to sell in 1698. William Buckland's good deed means Mary Adkins did not have title and had no title to give to her alleged "heir" at the time of the sale. Exactly what is the nature of Mary Adkins claim, and what was released is unknown; but it was certainly less than legal title. Further, she could not have released a dower right if she had previously given land subject to her dower right away or if she had inherited the subject land from her husband. In both instances, dower rights would have automatically expired by law. Dr. Harris argues we cannot judge legal practice of the 1600's by current standards. I have difficulty with the transaction as described by Mr Jacobus and view as outrageous an argument that malpractice and fraud was accepted in those times. Moreover, it seems to me that a currently practicing attorney is at least as qualified to express an expert opinion about a legal transaction from 1698-99 as is a practicing 2003 genealogist. Record of that exchange appears elsewhere on this site. I would also note that land was the major source of wealth in early colonial America and that issues concerning land were regularly litigated and of common knowledge. I would also note that legal practice of those days may not be what is current but that it must be considered at least adequate. General legal principles for real estate are much the same today as in 1698. Review of Buckland genealogy reveals they too rely on Mr. Jacobus's leap into the unknown for an identification of William2 Buckland and of his wife, the second of a series of five William Bucklands with a wife Eliza/Elizabeth. This is a line of fairly obscure individuals who left no great amount of records. A Nutmegger article clearly written after the Jacobus claims merely repeats them (Connecticut Nutmegger Vol 3 1970 pages 20-25 reporting records of a Captain Olmstead. This article has clear conflicts with the Buckland Family Association records referenced earlier and does not present any supporting information for the genealogy. The Bushnell genealogies do not appear to be satisfactory in locating the Jane Bushnell or Jane the relic Bushnell who married John Hills. They suggest her return to Saybrook after the death of John Bushnell indicates there is a relationship with the Saybrook Bushnells, although the Suffolk Co., Mass. probate records state she returned to her family in Saybrook- not his. The Jane identified by them would seem to be too old, at least 12 or more years older than John Hills in 1670. Although some authorities do list John as born in 1644 rather than the 1648 of HFIA (and others have him born before 1640), he would still be apparently much younger than Jane whose marriage to John Bushnell is reported to have occurred in 1650. Presumably Jane was at least 18 years old at the 1650 marriage date with John Bushnell. However, we in fact have no records of either her maiden name, birth date or age. While there are rare instances of girls in their early teens having married in early Colonial America, most such marriages took place in England usually prior to emigration. For the record, women in their thirties and forties still give birth to children. An older bride for John may well lend support to the idea of a small immediate family with stepchildren being treated as his own. In Appendix C of HFIA, reference is made to a Mar 27, 1747 deposition made in Lebanon for a Suffolk Mass. case by Samuel Hills, John's putative son, spelling out his origins and listing his age as 76 years old, again showing a birth in about 1671, and stating that he had lived in Duxbury, Plymouth Colony approximately 20 years earlier. While no specific case reference is given to enable this researcher to locate this deposition, there is no reason to believe that it was misrepresented. This Samuel is clearly identified in this deposition and in numerous other public records as a Hills and his father was therefor a Hills. This record clearly indicates that there was a Hills with a child Samuel born in about 1671. The only match from early New England records is to Samuel the son of John and Jane (the relic Bushnell) Hills of Saybrook. It thus appears HFIA had a substantial record, including support in vital, court, public and church records, for its conclusions on the parentage of Samuel Hills in marked contrast to Mr. Jacobus' "appears likely" and Mrs. Holman's "opinion" but "no proof". Mr. Jacobus has a way of developing theories on assumptions. He takes an assumption as fact and then creates new cloth out of the original premise. He often makes suggestions and later treats his suggestions as proven facts. At times his system offers valuable insight and fruitful avenues for new research. Admittedly, this can lead to primary records and explain secondary records. Most of us similarly start research from a theory which we then prove or disprove. But here the 1698-9 Adkins release simply has nothing to do on its face with John Hills. While Mr Jacobus says he did a careful reading of metes and bounds, he offers no proof of title for the land. His theory is inconsistent with John's 1692 oral will. Thomas Kilbourn had other non-Hills sources for his properties. The 1698-9 deed lacks the customary reference found in Kilbourn's deeds that reflect his purchase of property that had belonged to the Hills family. Subsequent researchers had found no proof to support Mr. Jacobus' theory. The unknown Mary Adkins received an unknown something from her unknown husband whoever he was. Perhaps she was a second or third wife and had dower from an earlier husband as well. But there is nothing that positively identifies her as the John Hills's widow, who was left a life estate with a right to invade principal. There is no corroboration of any sort for the theory. Legally, the widow Hills would be the seller of any real estate interest in the John Hills estate. Her dower rights to such estate lands would have expired in such estate land by force of law. The release does not mention dower rights or any other specific rights. Mary Adkins clearly would have no rights in another man's (William1 Buckland) lands who died a year earlier than her husband and to whom there are no apparent family connections. Moreover, it is disturbing that William2 Buckland's wife's name appears as "Eliza" rather than the Elizabeth represented by Mr. Jacobus in the Buckland-Kilbourn 1698-99 deed. Without something more in the way of corroboration, the Jacobus claim is nothing but circular reasoning in conflict with numerous public records. If Mary was a second wife, she had no dower rights to lands John had sold before her marriage. Apparently, most of his Hartford lands were sold circa 1679-1690. A second wife and any children would have no rights in lands that John had sold prior to his death. There is no record in John's recorded deeds of any reservation of dower rights by any wife and no record shows he had a wife named Mary. There is no complete record of when John disposed of all land received from his father, although Mr. Jacobus appears to believe all of John's lands were sold before his death in 1692. There is no record that John otherwise acquired property in Hartford, except as a result of gifts from his father. Dr Harris raises the possibility of a gift by Mary Adkins to the heiress Elizabeth of Hills estate land. This is a very different legal event from Mr. Jacobus' dower right argument. Dr Harris believes that Mr. Jacobus was unaware that John's estate held any land which may explain a theory contrary to the probate record. But a gift of land by a Mary Adkins, if she were John's heir, would legally extinguish all of her dower rights in such property by force of law. And if there was such a gift, why was Mary Adkins required to sign off. And again where is the proof of such a gift? Then of course there is the fact that Mrs Buckland2's name was "Eliza" rather than Elizabeth. But then this amounts to nothing more than speculation piled on speculation and not supported by the face of the release. Good genealogy requires corroboration for a fact to be "proven". Mrs. Holman's honest admission she has no proof and offers only "her opinion" ends any possible acceptance of the doubtful surmise. Her 8 years of "exhaustive" research, including considerable time spent on the ancestry of Samuel Hills, means Mrs. Holman found no corroboration for the Jacobus position. She was assisted by both Mr. Jacobus, Leon Clark Hills and others. In addition to denying that John Hills of Saybrook was a son of William of Hartford, Mrs Holman also believes that his name was Hill not Hills, despite finding town records, Saybrook deeds and an ear tag in the name John Hills. While it was fairly common for records to show an individual as a Hill despite that person being a Hills, it was far rarer (in fact extraordinary) to find an early written record of Hills who was instead a Hill. Here we have multiple public records with this man's name as "Hills". Jacobus was corrected on a similar issue by THE GREAT MIGRATION BEGINS. Anderson reverses Jacobus's claim that Thomas Hill of Roxbury was William Hills' brother. Anderson finds that Thomas Hill was neither a Hills nor a brother to William. In fact, it is unlikely William Hills Sr's brother Thomas ever came to America. There are estate records in England suggesting Thomas Hills died prior to 1623. It is likely we have a familar issue with John and Samuel Hills of Saybrook, excepting that public records show the "s" with John Hills. Holman also contests whether the son Samuel born in 1671 was the same Samuel Hills, who subsequently shows in Duxbury and Lebanon, based on her belief that he must have been born in 1673. Her work has many minor errors for names and dates, raising the issue of how much credence to give her "opinion" on this issue. Her larger issue involves the Goshen parish records from Feb 1734-35 of Samuel Hills. His birthday was in May according to the Saybrook Vital Records; and thus if the Goshen wedding was in Feb 1735, as argued by Mrs. Holman based on the recorded marriage contract, then Samuel, if age 62 on the date of the Feb 25th wedding, was probably born no later than 1672 not 1673. Even if this were not the Samuel of Saybrook, odds are statistically very high that his birthday would be later than Feb of any given year. And as a point of fact, Holman did not consider the wedding contract, which contains the statement of ages of the bride and groom, predated the marriage; and that the implementation of the wedding contract included a prior land transfer dated 22 Feb 1734. Holman's error as to Samuel's birth year is compounded, especially since the wedding appears to have occurred in 1734 rather than 1735. She notes the wedding took place 3 days after the 22 Feb 1734 land transaction with son Ephraim by which Ephraim received 11 acres of land, various animals and in exchange took on obligations to support his father Samuel and a new wife. Ephraim's deed was recorded 29 Mar 1735 but the deed itself was a year old at that time. There was also an earlier 1733 land transaction involving the same land and obligations but between Samuel Hills Sr and Jr where Jr returned acreage to his father. Again indicating Samuel Sr's plans to remarry were much earlier than claimed by Mrs. Holman. In any event, Samuel Hills, if age 62 on 25 Feb 1734, would have been born in 1671 as stated by the Saybrook Town records. Additionally in early America, a proper Puritan wedding of propertied parties was normally proceded by a wedding contract, the posting of the banns for a period of 3 weeks prior to the wedding and other requirements satisfied before the wedding ceremony took place. The wedding process from betrothal to ceremony normally was a two or three month process. Additional time was normal for the wedding contract negotiations. A wedding contract here probably dates to 1733 and would again support a birthday in 1671. The numerous deeds recording a contract for the care of Samuel and a new wife suggest that negotiations were drawn out and involved some "dissatisfaction" as the deeds between Samuel and Samuel Jr reveal. The ceremony itself was a civil not a church event. The fact that the wedding contract is recorded in the church records of a certain year is quite unusual and not indicative of the actual date of marriage. Such a document is similar to our prenuptial agreements of today and is enforceable by the courts, having no religious signifigance. It is instructive that Samuel by a deed dated 22 Feb 1734 made a conditional gift of land, farm animals, tools, clothing and items to his son Ephraim where Ephraim was then obligated to provide ...for comfortable support of life.. of Samuel and a wife, if any. This deed provide for any disputes of the parties to be submitted to two deacons of the church in Goshen for settlement. (Lebanon Deeds 5:129) The marriage contract seemingly provided a similar dispute resolution. One of the striking things about Mrs. Holman's claim that Samuel was born in 1673, as she herself admits, is it results in his 1694 marriage at barely the age of majority- 21. But among both the early Pilgrims and Puritans, the age of the male at first marriage was typically closer to 27 than to 21. See A LITTLE COMMONWEALTH FAMILY LIFE IN PLYMOUTH COLONY John Demos Oxford Press 2000 13th edition page 193. The demographic study of 650 individuals in Plymouth shows a mean age of men at first marriage for Samuel's cohort of 25.4 and for women of 20.2 years. For all men in the sample, covering individuals born between 1600 and 1700, the mean age at marriage was nearly 27. While such a study is not conclusive, it does raise a red flag for a marriage where the age of one of the parties is far from the norm. You have to bear in mind the scarcity of females in early America which would put young poor men at a disadvantage to more established older males. A marriage in 1670 of a male (John Hills) born about 1644 would fit Demos's profile fairly accurately. Such a man of age 26 or 27 would not be a "callow youth" as John is called at times by Mr. Jacobus in his objections to the marriage with the relic Jane Bushnell. However, Samuel's marriage at barely age 21, as alleged by Mrs. Holman, clearly does not fit the profile and is subject to the "callow" objection. Samuel's marriage at over age 23 as stated by HFIA is closer to the expected cohort average of his time-25 than to Mrs. Holman's boy groom of age 21. In the absence of reasonable evidence to the contrary, and on the ultimate fact that as HFIA puts it "There was no other John Hill(s) of age in the Connecticut area to have married in 1670", there seems little reason to doubt that John Hills who married Jane Bushnell in 1670 in Saybrook was the son of William Hills of Hartford. An intensive and documented search was made for any other John Hill(s) in the area by genealogists working for the compiler and editor of HFIA. Mrs. Holman herself revisted the same territory over an 8 year period of research and found no other possiblity. The search for potential John Hill(s) in Connecticut started with the original founding families of Hartford and was extended to all of Connecticut which had a population of some few thousand people in 1670. HFIA, while far from perfect, was based on extensive records and research for early Hills and collaterals throughout New England gathered over a 20 year period by NEGHS certified researchers and a large group of assistants. Mr. Jacobus in his lifetime of gathering records found no other ancestor nor did Mrs. Holman in her "exhaustive" research. It is clear that Mr Jacobus took exception to some of the more flowery language of HFIA but that language style was a custom of the time rather than necessarily a failure of research effort. In contrast, we find more than a few expected records of John Hills, son of William of Hartford, in the expected Hartford/Saybrook area, doing the expected things of a Puritan man of the day - freeman status, buying and selling lands, farming and raising stock animals, military service, marrying and having children, participating in a probate and then dying. We do not find church records but then much of Saybrook was destroyed in King Philip's War and not all people participated in church matters. We know John was alive during the period of 1644 to 1692. We know, by statements of Savage and by probate records from Suffolk along with Saybrook town records, that John was not in Hartford for much of that time. The absence of a home and home lot in his estate inventory is again indicative that John lived elsewhere. One wonders if John died following an illness, returning to Hartford to live out his final days with family members and near medical personnel. It may be that John married a second or a third time. Bachelorhood was not approved at the time. It is also perhaps equally possible that his wife Jane was also known as Mary at some point by some people. But there is no record of either possibility; and absent some kind of proof, the Jacobus argument must fail as unproven. John would not have been the first nor the last Hills to marry a woman who was older than himself. We have to regard any claim to lineage to one of John's unnamed daughters as "unproven" in the absence of some further record. Likewise, there is no reason to doubt the Samuel Hills born in 1671 as recorded in Saybrook town records was the same Samuel Hills who went on to marry Phebe Leonard in Duxbury. There is no known record of any other possible Samuel Hills or of an immigrant Samuel Hills to Duxbury. The town records of Saybrook record the name as Hills. The 1734 Church records of Goshen match to Samuel of Saybrook. His Lebanon deposition of Mar 27, 1747 with its sworn statement of his age of 76 and prior residence, and having no genealogical purpose at the time made, point to the 1671 date recorded in Saybrook and corroborate the age listed in his second marriage contract. It seems to me the burden of proof rests squarely on anyone who wants to contest the town records of Hartford and Saybrook, the court records of Massachuetts, the public records of Duxbury, Plymouth Colony, the land records of New London and the church records from Hartford and Goshen parishes. In other words we have primary records with additional corroboration. To refute those records, I suggest a researcher has a very high burden of proof and would need to produce an alternative ancestor, alternate primary records or an immigration record or a reasonable explanation for rejecting the records that do exist. No other ancestor for Samuel Hills has been found in some 125 years of research. While the various records do not verify each and every day of the life of John and Jane nor do they answer each and every question that we might have, they are "almost conclusive". The records are far more extensive than those for many individuals for whom there has been no challenge of their connection to the Hills of Hartford. Perhaps DNA testing can put this issue to bed once and for all. The probable age disparity between John Hills and Jane, the relic Bushnell, is troubling to some degree. While we do not have any proof of the extent of the age disparity, we do have to keep in mind that in early colonial times there was considerable social pressure for men and women to be married, despite conditions we might consider incompatible. Colonial marriages have been often characterized as "Economic Unions" rather than "Love Matches". A modern sensibility to an age variance would seem rather strange to our ancestors for whom a well to do widow was often a more attractive potential mate than a young maid still under the control of her parents. The Board for Certification of Genealogists has a current "Genealogical Proof Standard" which is held to be a fundamental concept. "In order to merit confidence, each conclusion about an ancestor must have sufficient credibility to be accepted as 'proved'. Acceptable conclusions, therefore must meet the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS). The GPS consists of five elements: . a reasonably exhaustive search . complete and accurate source citations . analysis and correlation of collected information . resolution of any conflicting evidence; and . a soundly reasoned coherently written conclusion" I would submit that neither Mr. Jacobus nor Mrs. Holman met this standard of proof in their work related to John Hills, his wife and children. Neither can lay claim to a single primary record for their arguments or to have resolved conflicting evidence. Mrs. Holman frankly admits to having no proof. Some of her arguments are at variance with her own records- the marriage year of Samuel. Others are at variance with Samuel Hills' own sworn testimony- his birth year and age. Others are at variance with known public records- his name Hills. Others are inconsistent with normal practices of the time - 21 year old men were not bridegrooms in Plymouth Colony. Mr. Jacobus raises dubious arguments as to Jane the relic Bushnell's inappropriate age and heiress status, the unknown ownership of a property sold in 1698-99 to a propertied relative and John's failure to list a son in an oral will. Such arguments are inconsistent with the terms of the 1692 Hills will, practices of the times, various public records, and have no corroboration in any known record. Such unproven arguments must fall in the face of inconsistency with actual records and practices of the time. He hedges with his "appears likely" but that is not genealogical proof. Even worse, his case resting only on "appears likely" is then stated to be absolute fact in his latter writings, clearly violating the genealogical proof standard.
Michael
Grimes
