One of the most crucial pieces of evidence yet found to help identify the wife of Thomas Johnson, one of the founders of Newark, New Jersey is the disposition of the estate of Ellen Bostick of Stratford, Connecticut Colony.
This document is an extraordinary find, as Ellen Bostick was a married woman – or in legal terms, feme covert – at the time of her death in 1677. By law, any property (real or personal) she brought into her marriage to Arthur Bostick was his.
But previously transcribed passages from this record have caused some confusion as to the nature of Ellen Bostick’s relationship with Thomas Johnson, who was originally from New Haven Colony.
Fortunately, one of the members of Wikitree’s Puritan Great Migration Project generously emailed me a scanned copy of the court record regarding the final disposition of Ellen’s estate.
By making my own painstaking transcription of this almost indecipherable manuscript, I now feel confident of the identity of Thomas Johnson’s wife.
Coverture schmoverture
Ellen married Arthur Bostick sometime before 1659, when court records show that an attachment was made on Arthur’s estate, then a petition made on both his behalf and on behalf of his wife. The reason for this isn’t known, but it may be telling that four men formed a committee- by Arthur’s own suggestion – to determine “the state and condition of said Bostock and his wife and to order what they think suitable therein”.[1]
My guess is that Arthur’s kids – particularly his son, John – didn’t much like Ellen or want to share what typically by law would be Arthur’s (and next, John’s) in its entirety. Probably Ellen came into the marriage with some hefty assets and, considering the claim later made on her estate, an obligation to pass on some of that wealth to someone not all connected to her husband and the Bostick heirs.
Oddly enough, neither party made a will which would have settled the matter after death. No, the concern “for ye prevention of future trouble and dissatisfaction” clearly was felt to be probable during their lifetimes.
By 1674, it appears that both Ellen and Arthur were in failing health. An inventory and binding agreements were made with wording which seems to indicate that there was deep concern as to whether both would be taken care of or abandoned as they grew more infirm. A memorandum made certain that Ellen was not to be thrown out of the home and a very specific clause contained in the agreement concerning Arthur’s half ensured Johnny-boy was legally bound to care for his father.[2]
The Bostick lands and personalty were evenly divided with Ellen to enjoy full possession of her half to dispose as she desired for “her and her assigns and feeofees in trust.” Her husband, Arthur Bostick had same rights of possession for his half for “his heirs and assigns”.[3] Note the difference in phrasing.
This tiny but significant detail seems to clearly indicate that Ellen had no children nor other heirs of her body.
Three years later, Ellen Bostick died (Arthur outlived her by a few years) and the above mentioned became a key part of the court’s probate consideration.
Probing the probate
Once I had a copy of the probate record, the first thing I looked for was the passage in question that referred to Thomas Johnson. I needed to see with my own eyes just how it was written. It is as follows:
“Also it appears that she intended to give unto John Bostock and his wife and ye wife of her son Jonson of New Jersey: This Court orders that John Bostock and his wife and ye wife of her sonn Jonson shall hand out of the said estate 20 pence a piece.”[4]
Now, I have seen other Puritan probate records which named a son-in-law as son, so I know to be cautious about taking this phrasing at face value.
But when considered together with the April 1663 claim on debt made by Thomas Johnson on “behalf of his father in law Bausticke of Stratford”,[5] and the September 1663 marriage between Thomas Johnson Sr. and Frances Hitchcock,[6] there then appears to be the very real possibility that Mrs. Ellen Bostick was actually the widowed mother of Thomas Johnson.
Which is why the prior records concerning the division of the Bostick property carry so much weight. It’s that one brief statement implying Ellen’s lack of children that casts everything in a different light.
My next step was to figure out how the real estate was disposed. Personalty often was devised in gratitude or affection (or, in the case of colonial Marylanders, as a kind of deathbed offering to the Catholic Church). It often went to those who would not otherwise inherit under laws of succession. But real estate was a different matter. And, especially in the colonial era, learning just who inherited or was gifted real estate can reveal blood relationships.
The Disposition…
Once Ellen Bostick died, the court made a final disposition of her estate. [7] A claim was made by Elizabeth (Bourne) Wilcockson, as next of kin, who stated that she was promised receipt of a “child’s portion”. The court also heard testimony from Israel Chauncey and Joseph Hawly, the overseers of Ellen’s estate, of bequests they heard Ellen express while she was alive. The two men also presented the aforementioned 1674 inventory. The disposition went as follows:
- To the children of Hannah Porter, the sum of 40£, to be divided equally among them, on account of great kindness from their grandfather and mother received by the deceased in her lifetime.
- To husband, Arthur Bostick, 5£ and a silver spoon, as a manifestation of love and respect.
- To [stepson] John Bostick and his wife, and “ye wife of her son Jonson”, 20 pence a piece.
- To Israel Chauncey and Joseph Hawley, overseers of her estate, 5£ a piece, for taking special care of the deceased and her estate during her lifetime.
- Residue of estate divided into halves; one half to Temperance Welles…[illegible, but other sources have listed Sarah Welles – two daughters of Elizabeth Wilcockson from first marriage] and the other half divided equally between the sons of Elizabeth (Bourne) Welles Wilcockson.
- All real property (lands) to the above mentioned sons of Elizabeth Wilcockson
So, it is now quite clear that no son surnamed Johnson (nor any children born to Ellen) inherited real estate.
This leads me to believe that “wife of son Jonson” really should be interpreted as, “wife of son-in-law Johnson“.
With the above in mind… since Mrs. Ellen Bostick did not have any children, that means the term father-in-law should probably be interpreted exactly as written in the April 1663 claim on a debt made by Thomas Johnson on behalf of his father-in-law Baustick of Stratford.
Which would also mean that Thomas Johnson was married to Arthur Bostick’s daughter, Ellen before 1663. And if Thomas Johnson was still the son-in-law in 1677, then he could not have been the Thomas Johnson Sr. who married Frances Hitchcock in Sep 1663. That guy must have been his (apparently older) cousin with the same name.
Meaning, the Ellin Johnson, wife of Thomas Johnson found in New Haven Colony records between 1650-1662 is the same woman left 20 pence by her stepmother, Mrs. Ellen Bostick in 1677.
Therefore, it can be concluded with confidence that Thomas Johnson of New Haven Colony and, later, Newark, New Jersey had only one wife: Ellen Bostick, daughter of Arthur Bostick of Stratford, Connecticut Colony.
Footnotes
1. Bostwick, Henry Anthon, “Genealogy of the Bostwick family in America : The descendants of Arthur Bostwick, of Stratford, Conn.”, Internet Archive (Online: archive.org, 2010), [Originally published: Bostwick, Henry Anthon, “Genealogy of the Bostwick family in America : The descendants of Arthur Bostwick, of Stratford, Conn.”, (Hudson, NY: Bryan Printing Company, 1901), p. 36]
2. Bostwick, “Genealogy of the Bostwick Family in America”, pp. 41, 43-44
3. Bostwick, “Genealogy of the Bostwick Family in America”, pp. 38-41
4. “Connecticut, Wills and Probate Records, 1609-1999”, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015
5. Dexter, Franklin Bowditch, “Ancient Town Records, Volume II”, Google Books (Online: Google, Inc., 2015), [Originally published: Dexter, Franklin Bowditch, “Ancient Town Records, Volume II, New Haven Town Records 1662-1684”, (New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Company, 1919), p. 38]
6. Salisbury, Edward Elbridge, “Family-Histories and Genealogies – Volume Second – Containing a Series of Genealogical and Biographical Monographs on the Families of Griswold, Wolcott, Pitkin, Ogden, Johnson and Diodati and Notes on the Families of De Wolf, Drake, Bond and Swayne, and Dunbar”, Internet Archive (Online: archive.org: 2008), [Originally published: Salisbury, Edward Elbridge, “Family-Histories and Genealogies – Volume Second – Containing a Series of Genealogical and Biographical Monographs on the Families of 2Griswold, Wolcott, Pitkin, Ogden, Johnson and Diodati and Notes on the Families of De Wolf, Drake, Bond and Swayne, and Dunbar”, (Salisbury,1892), p. 310]
7. “Connecticut, Wills and Probate Records, 1609-1999”, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2015
axehandles 