Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

CHILD.
RICHAKD CHILD.
The earliest notice I find of Eichard Child is in Mr. Lothrop's
Church records. It is there recorded that "Richard Childe and
Mary Linnett marryed the 15th day of October, 1649, by Mr.
Collier at my Brother Linnett's house."
I find no record of his children ; but it appears that he had a
family, for March 5, 1660, he was ordered by the Court to desist
from erecting a cottage within the bounds of Yarmouth, the putting
up of such buildings being contrary to law.—He afterwards
gave security to save harmless the town of Yarmouth from all
charges on account of the children he then had, and he was thereupon
permitted "to enjoy his cottage."*
It thus appears that Richard Childs had a family, Samuel and
Richard Childs of Barnstable were probably his children. Samuel
was killed at Rehobeth battle March 25th, 1675.—There was
a Richard Child in Marshfleld in 1665, perhaps the same who had
been of Barnstable and Yarmouth. He there built him a house
and married, and had a family. Richard Child of Watertown,
born in 1631, was another man. He married March 30, 1662,
Mehitable Dimmock, a daughter of Elder Thomas of Barnstable.
His daughter Abigail married Joseph Lothrop of Barnstable, and
Hannah, Joseph Blush.
I find no positive evidence that Dea. Richard Child, from
whom all the Barnstable families of the name descend was a son
of the Richard who married Mary Linnell ; but there is little reason,
to doubt that such was the fact.
*In the account of Richard Berry I stated that he was forbidden to erect a cottage in
Yarmouth. That was a mistake, it was Eichard Child that was so forbidden. The practice
which prevailed in early colonial times, of warning strangers out of town and forbidding
them to build houses or settle in a towTi without a license was sanctioned by law. The
case of Richard Child is not a solitary one. Men of good standing who were strangers
were often warned out of town. The law may seem harsh and tyramcal ; but reasons then
existed which have now passed away. If Richard Child had been allowed to build in Yarmouth
without protest, he would have been entitled to a personal right in the common lands
and a tenement right amounting in Yarmouth to 16 1-2 shares out of the 3,118 into which
the to\vn was divided ; and if unfortunate, the town would be liable for the supplies of his
family. A protest not only saved the town harmless ; but prevented the person moving
in fi*om claiming the rights of a proprietor.