ter wheel of the Come Mill.
In the case of Collins vs. Converse, it seems that Collins charged C colt at the Converse farm, which belonged to Collins, and which Converse took from Collins' yard.
s her to be the same mare he once bought of Mr. Collins notwithstanding shee is disguised by the claforsaid, which himselfe first bought of Mr. Edward Collins and since sold to Daniel Markham.
Danieend Collins, and had been sold by him back to Collins after Collins sold her to Wiggin, and Wiggin e mare had her colt after he sold her back to Collins, and that he branded the mare with an M when testify in their own behalf in 1670, neither Collins or Converse personally appear as witnesses inhe jury decided the mare and colt belonged to Collins, and both were given up to him. But Converse wn church, with Mr. Thomas Broughton and Mr. Edward Collins, both of Medford.
These three gentlemenappears against Mr. Thomas Broughton and Mr. Edward Collins, defendents, in an action of the case of[11 more...]
, not only shows his willingness to arbitrate the issue, but also the talents the theocratic leaders felt might be employed in the legal profession.
June 10th, 1656.
These prsnts witness yt. Mr Thomas Broughton of Boston.
Merchant, Mr Edward Collins of Medford Merchant & Henry Dunster of Cambridge Clark, on ye, one pt. & Mr Zackary Sims of Charlestown pastor of ye Church of Ct there & Mr William Sims his son of Charlestown on ye other party do oblige and bind ourselves each party to oteared for cultivation.
These, doubtless, marked the position of this old road from the river northward.
Just when the mills ceased to be used and the road discontinued is difficult to determine, but probably long after the suit of Symmes vs. Collins, described in the previous article by Mr. Whitney.
Mr. Symmes had several acres of upland and some marsh bordering on the Menotomy which, situated below, was quite near to the Broughton mill.
The building of the dam in the river of Misticke