Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

138 GENEALOGICAL NOTES OF BARNSTABLE FAMILIES.
honest acts, but it cannot justify. Anotlier consideration
may be named ; as soon as their children were able to contribute
something by their labors for the support of the
family, no more is heard of the thievish prope-isities of husband
or wife.
He had eleven children born in Yarmouth, but the
record is imperfect, most of the names being torn off and
lost. The dates remain. John, born 29th March, 1652':
one, 11th July, 1654 ; Elizabeth, 5th March, 1656 ; one,
12th May, 1659; one, 23d Aug. 1662; one, IBth Oct.
1663 ; one, 5th Oct. 1668 ; one, 1st June, 1670 ; one, 31st
Oct. 1673, one, 12th Dec. 1677, and one other. It is probable
that five of the above died before July, 1676. I judge
so from a mutilated record under the entry of the births.
He certainly had sons John, Richard, Samuel, Nathaniel,
who died Feb. 7, 1793-4, and Joseph, who died in 1686,
and a daughter Elizabeth, who married Josiah Jones, 28th
Nov. 1677.
John Berry was a resident of Yarmouth ; he was a
soldier in King Philip's war, and died in 1745, aged 93.
In his will he names his children Judah, Ebenezer,
Elizabeth, who married Samuel Baker, July 30, 1702
Experience, who married Bangs, and Mary, who
married Isaac Chase, July 23, 1706.
Samuel Berry, son of Kichard, married Elizabeth,
daughter of John Bell, and had six children born in Yar-
mouth, viz : A
daughter, born Jan'y 19, 1682; Elizabeth,
Dec. 21, 1684; Patience, June 22, 1687; John, July 9,
1689; Samuel, Nov. 1691, and Desire, June 29, 1694.
The father died Feb. 21, 1703-4.
Note.—A friend for whose opiuioii I iiave a high respect, reproves me
for speaking so plainlj^ of the faults of those whose biography I write.
In the common intercourse of life, [ admit that it is a good rule to sajnothing,
when you cannot speak well of a man. Such a rule does not
apply to the writer of history. Shall all that is said in the Bible respecting
Judas Iscariot and other vile persons be stricken out? Shall the
name of Nero and of Benedict Arnold cease to appear in history? Shall
the name of Judge JeftVies be hereafter chronicled among the saints?
What if a man's blood "has crept through scoundrels ever since the
flood," is he to blame? Is it not meritorious in him to have controlled a
constitutional predisposition to do wrong? I know prudes will condemn,
and the very discreet object, yet their objecting or condemning does not
relieve the writer of history from telling the whole truth.