hide Matching Documents

Browsing named entities in HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks). You can also browse the collection for 1639 AD or search for 1639 AD in all documents.

Your search returned 9 results in 5 document sections:

HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), Chapter 1: (search)
gable streams. The building of small barks on the banks of Mystic River, as early as 1631, shows its superior claims to other places. Trade with Boston commenced before 1645, and the river was the thoroughfare. Long open boats were used for transportation, and they substituted the tide for oars and sails. They were sometimes drawn with ropes by men who walked on the bank. There was a ford across this stream at the Wear till 1748. The ford in the centre of Medford continued in use till 1639, and was about ten rods above the bridge. The Penny Ferry, where Malden Bridge now is, was established by Charlestown, April 2, 1640, and continued to September 28, 1787. There was, till recently, but one island in the river, and that is near the shore in Malden, at Moulton's Point, and is called White Island. Two have since been made; one by cutting through Labor in Vain, and the other by straightening the passage above the bridge. The depth of the river is remarkable for one so narrow
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), Chapter 2: (search)
ts, and for taxing cattle that go over that bridge. The bridge was long, because the banks of the river at that place were low; and on both sides was swamp. In 1639, we have the following record on the subject of a bridge: At the General Court, Boston, the 22d of 3 mo. (called May), 1639, Mr. Mathew Cradock is freed of rates t1639, Mr. Mathew Cradock is freed of rates to the county, by agreement of the Court, for the year ensuing from this day, in regard of his charge in building the bridge; and the county is to finish it at the charge of the public. Mr. Davison and Lieut. Sprague to see it done, and to bring in their bill of charges. This record further proves that a bridge had been commencedwit, the physician of the tribe, its powwow, priest, witch, sorcerer, and chirurgeon. In 1637, the Squa Sachem deeded a tract of land in Musketaquid (Concord). In 1639, she deeded a tract to Charlestown (now Somerville); also another tract to Jotham Gibbon, of Boston. This last deed is as follows:-- This testifies that I,
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), Chapter 3: (search)
ton, 1630; Medford or Mystic, 1630; Watertown, 1630; Roxbury, 1630; Dorchester, 1630 ; Cambridge or Newton, 1633; Ipswich, 1634; Concord, 1635; Hingham, 1635; Newbury, 1635; Scituate, 1636; Springfield, 1636; Duxbury, 1637; Lynn, 1637; Barnstable, 1639; Taunton, 1639; Woburn, 1642; Malden, 1649. London, May 22, 1629: On this day the orders for establishing a government and officers in Massachusetts Bay passed, and said orders were sent to New England(. Although, in the first settlement of 1639; Woburn, 1642; Malden, 1649. London, May 22, 1629: On this day the orders for establishing a government and officers in Massachusetts Bay passed, and said orders were sent to New England(. Although, in the first settlement of New England, different sections of country were owned and controlled by Companies in England, yet the people here claimed and exercised a corporate power in the elections of their rulers and magistrates. This was the case with Medford. To show what form of government our ancestors in Medford recognized and supported, we subjoin the following records:-- Oct. 19, 1630: First General Court of Massachusetts Colony, and this at Boston: Present, the Governor, Deputy-Governor, Sir Richard Salton
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), Chapter 11: currency. (search)
6, March 3: For explanation of an order made at the General Court, in May, 1634, it is ordered, that hereafter all men shall be rated, in all rates, for their whole ability, wheresoever it lies. In a general levy of £ 600, in 1634, Meadford paid £ 26; Charlestown, £ 45. In 1635, in a levy of £ 200, Meadford paid £ 10, and Charlestown £ 16. Keeping about these proportions, Medford paid its share as follows: In 1635, £ 19. 15s.; in 1636, £ 15; in 1637, £ 49. 12s.; in 1638, £ 59. 5s. 8d.; in 1639, '40, and '41, no record of tax; in 1642, £ 10; in 1643, £ 7. Winthrop tells us, that,-- Of a tax of £ 1,500, levied by the General Court in 1637, the proportion paid by Medford was £ 52. 10s.; by Boston, £ 233. 10s.; Ipswich, £ 180; Salem, £ 170. 10s.; Dorchester, £ 140; Charles-town, £ 138; Roxbury, £ 115; Watertown, £ 110; Newton, £ 106; Lynn, £ 105. Mr. Savage says of this time (1637), Property and numbers, in a very short period, appear to have been very unequal
HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF MEDFORD, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, FROM ITS FIRST SETTLEMENT, IN 1630, TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1855. (ed. Charles Brooks), chapter 18 (search)
--  9-13Robert.  14Elizabeth. 1-2Hezekiah Usher m. Frances, dau. of Lady Alice Lisle, who d. May 25, 1723. She was the widow of Dr. Leonard Hoar, third Pres. H. C., who d. Nov. 28, 1675. By her Hezekiah Usher had--  2-15Hezekiah, b. 6, 4mo., 1639.  16John, b. 11, 7mo., 1643; d. 10mo., 1645.  17Elizabeth, b. 1, 12mo., 1645.   He d. July 11, 1697, probably without surviving issue. 1-4John Usher m., 1st, Elizabeth, dau. of Peter Sidgett, and had by her--  4-18 Elizabeth, b. June 18, 1omas, b. 1673; lived in Killingly, Ct., and had issue.  11Joseph, b. c. 1675; lived in Woburn, Ct., and had issue.   The earliest mentioned person by the name of Whitmore I have yet met with is John of Stamford, who was living in Wethersfield in 1639. He was killed by the Indians in 1648, leaving a son, John. I have some reason to suspect that he was the father of all of the name here, and that the following will give about the record of his children's births:--   Thomas, b. 1615; the