Genealogical notes of Barnstable families - citizen hylbom blog

GENEALOGICAL NOTES OF BAKN8TABLE FAMILIES. 331
died in that town in 1648. I find no evidence tiiat he was ever of
Barnstable. Hoit joined Mr. Lothrop's church in Scituate April
19, 163.5, sold his house there in 1636 or soon after. About the
year 1639 he removed to Winsor, Conn. If of Barnstable he was
here very early. John Stockbridge was a wheel and millwright,
and may have resided in Barnstable as a workman. I find no
trace of evidence that he was ever an inhabitant. He afterwards
was of Boston.
In addition to the foregoing, a few other names may be added,
servants of the first settlers, who did not remain long and were
never legal inhabitants.
Of the forty-five heads of families who were inhabitants of
Barnstable in Jan. 1643-4, there came from
Scituate, 26 23
Duxbury, 2
Hingham, 2 2
Yarmouth, 1
Boston, 3 3
Weymouth, 1 1
Charlestown, 1
England, 9 9
45 38
Those noted as from England had probably resided in Boston
or Dorchester a short time previously to coming to Barnstable.
In the second column is placed the number of the families who
were inhabitants Oct. 21, 1639.
Thus far the proof respecting the date of the incorporation of
Barnstable has consisted of negations. June 4, 1639, O. 8., the
General Court met and entered on its records that Barnstable was
one of the towns within the Colony of New Plymouth, and appointed
William Casely the first constable, and he was then sworn
into oflice.
These quotations from the records show conclusively that the
Rev. Mellen was mistaken in his date, and equally as conclusively
that the town of Barnstable was incorporated, according to the
usages of
style.*
the times, on the fourteenth day of June 1639, new
That Mr. Dimmock was appointed in March, 1639, "to exercise
Barnstable men in their arms," does not prove that the town had
then been incorporated for, at the same court, a similar appoint-
*The conclusion of Mr. Otis that the incorporation of Bamstahle should date from
June 4, O. S., (June 14, N. S.,) seems untenable Irom his own reasoning. The fact that a
constable was appointed, at the session of the court of June 4, is not sufficient; this officer
was often appointed for places that were not at the time recognized as towns. A place not
entitled to be represented in the court called not be considered as fully incorporated, and
Barnstable was not so represented until the ensuing December term. The record of the
"Committees or Deputies for each town" in the colony, has the following : "For Barnstable,
Mr. Joseph Hull, Mr. Thomas Dimmock, made in December Court, 1639." This would
seem to be conclusive that the incorporation of the town should date from Dec. 3, 1639,
when the court met. S.