hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Medford (Massachusetts, United States) 457 1 Browse Search
Benjamin Woodbridge 50 2 Browse Search
Salem (Massachusetts, United States) 34 0 Browse Search
Mathew Cradock 33 1 Browse Search
Caleb Brooks 25 3 Browse Search
John Brooks 25 7 Browse Search
Aaron Porter 23 3 Browse Search
Isaac Royall 22 4 Browse Search
Maria Gowen Brooks 22 0 Browse Search
Horace Brooks 21 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Medford Historical Society Papers, Volume 3.. Search the whole document.

Found 441 total hits in 181 results.

... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ...
Joseph Tufts (search for this): chapter 1
a fine of five shillings, and pay fees and costs taxed at thirteen pounds eight shillings, and two pence. In 1754, by the annexation of that part of Charlestown situated on the south side of the river to the town of Medford, the southerly half of Mistick bridge and the causey adjoining became a charge to the town of Medford (the town tried in vain to secure the help of other towns in caring for the said south part of said bridge), and Samuel Brooks, Esq., Lieut. Stephen Hall, Jr., and Joseph Tufts were chosen a committee to manage affairs relating to the said southerly half of Mistick bridge and the causey adjoining. Medford town records say that July 25, 1757,Samuel Brooks, Esq., Stephen Hall, Esq., and Capt. Caleb Brooks, be a committee to agree with suitable persons to rebuild the south side of Medford great bridge with wood or stone. We are now to consider the measures taken to place the whole charge of maintaining Mistick bridge upon the town of Medford, it being evident t
Samuel Danforth (search for this): chapter 1
ed, the charge of building and maintaining it, may be laid, either on the County of Middlesex, or proportioned among the inhabitants of a considerable number of towns, who will most use it. Charlestown chose a committee to oppose the building of a bridge. The General Court granted the petition for a bridge, and the towns of Medford and Charlestown were ordered to build and maintain one over the wears, and each pay one-half of the expense. August, 1747, the General Court order that Samuel Danforth, William Brattle, and Edmund Trowbridge, Esqrs., be a committee of said Court, empowered and directed, to cause a good and sufficient bridge, to be erected over the place called the Wears, between Medford and Charlestown. Nov. 4, 1747, Andrew Hall, Ebenezer Brooks, and Francis Whitmore, Jr., were appointed a committee on behalf of the town of Medford to build one-half of the bridge. Two hundred pounds old tenor was raised to pay for it. May 12, 1760, the Selectmen were chosen a c
Ralph Sprague (search for this): chapter 1
expense of the Province. The records of the General Court say that Oct. 10th. 1641 it is ordered that Lieut. Sprague and Edward Converse should repair the bridge at Medford over Mistick river, and the same be paid for out of the Treasury. Oct 17th. 1643. Mr. Edward Tomlins should have 22 pounds to repair Mistick bridge, to make it strong and sufficient, for which sum of 22 pound he hath undertaken it. At a General Court at Boston, for elections the 6th. of the 3rd. month 1646. Ralph Sprague and Edward Converse are appointed to view tile bridge at Mistick, and what charge they conceive meet to be presently expended for the making it sufficient and prevent the ruin thereof, or by further delay to endanger it, by agreeing with workmen for the complete repairing thereof and to make their return to Mr. Willoughby and Mr. Russell and what they shall do herein to be satisfied out of the Treasury. March, 1647-8. Capt. Ting, Mr. Glover, Lieft. Pendleton, Willie Parker and Edward
Buss (search for this): chapter 1
railroad, and one each at North and Grove streets, where those streets pass over said railroad. Mention should be made of those bridges that once existed in our streets over the Middlesex canal. There was one over the branch canal at Mystic avenue near Swan street, and one each over the main canal at Main street near Summer street, at Winthrop street near West street, at North street at its junction with West, Cotting, and Auburn streets, and at High street at its junction with Boston avenue. The abutments of the bridge over the canal, where crossed by the Boston & Lowell Railroad, may still be seen near the Chemical Works, on Boston avenue in the city of Somerville. Members. Number previously reported, 226. Begien, Henry M. Brown, George E. Bruce, Mrs. F. P. Buss, Charles B. Coburn, Charles F. Fuller, G. S. T. Hollis, Mrs. Mary P. Kennedy, Dr. J. S. Leavitt, Harry B. Montague, Mrs. Hattie B. Start, Mrs. Philena C. Sturtevant, James S.
Philena (search for this): chapter 1
railroad, and one each at North and Grove streets, where those streets pass over said railroad. Mention should be made of those bridges that once existed in our streets over the Middlesex canal. There was one over the branch canal at Mystic avenue near Swan street, and one each over the main canal at Main street near Summer street, at Winthrop street near West street, at North street at its junction with West, Cotting, and Auburn streets, and at High street at its junction with Boston avenue. The abutments of the bridge over the canal, where crossed by the Boston & Lowell Railroad, may still be seen near the Chemical Works, on Boston avenue in the city of Somerville. Members. Number previously reported, 226. Begien, Henry M. Brown, George E. Bruce, Mrs. F. P. Buss, Charles B. Coburn, Charles F. Fuller, G. S. T. Hollis, Mrs. Mary P. Kennedy, Dr. J. S. Leavitt, Harry B. Montague, Mrs. Hattie B. Start, Mrs. Philena C. Sturtevant, James S.
October 26th, 1638 AD (search for this): chapter 1
de, and was raised about 3 feet above marsh level; its approach on the south side of the river over the marsh was by means of a causeway. The town of Charlestown brought a suit against Governor Cradock's agent for obstructing the river with a bridge, to the hindrance of boats, and exacting toll for cattle that passed over the bridge, and appointed a committee to prosecute the suit, and also appointed parties to attend court as witnesses. Charlestown records say that on the 26th of the 10th month, 1638, It was ordered that Mr. Walter Palmer and Richard Sprague should follow the suit at the Quarter Court against Mr. Cradock's agent, for stopping up Mistick river with a bridge, to the hindrance of boats, and exacting toll (without any orders) of cattle that go over the bridge. George Buncker, Geo. Hutchinson, and James Hayden were appointed to be at the General Court next, to witness to the concerning of Mr. Cradock's bridge. No mention is made of this suit in the records of
December 12th, 1693 AD (search for this): chapter 1
nt of this Court, to answer to presentments for defects in their parts of Mistick bridge. Jan. 27, 1692-3. The Selectmen of Medford, Maiden, Woburn and Reading, are called upon to repair the northerly half of Mistick bridge, as they have been wont to do, forthwith, and to make report at the next term of Court, on penalty of Five pounds in money, for each towns neglecting to attend to this order of the Court. Evidently but little attention was paid to this order of the Court, for on Dec. 12, 1693, the Court orders the respective towns to appear and answer to the defects in the northerly half of Mistick bridge. Dec. 26, 1693. The Selectmen of Medford, appear in Court, to answer to their presentment respecting a defect in the Northerly half of Mistick bridge, and say that their part of the bridge is in very good repair. The Selectmen of Woburn, Reading and Malden appear and say that they have nothing to do with the repairing of Mistick bridge, nor should concern themselves ther
May 12th, 1817 AD (search for this): chapter 1
ent, and on May 3, 1805, the town instructed the committee to go on and finish it. May 20, 1807, the town votes that 12 1/2 cents be charged for opening and closing the draw, and May 20, 1809, the town fixes the price of opening the draw at 10 cents for a lighter, and 20 cents for a larger vessel. On April 7, 1817, the town appointed a committee to take into consideration the subject of a drawbridge, and report as to method of hoisting and keeping Drawbridge. the draw in repair, and May 12, 1817, this committee report, that at the time of building the first draw, certain individuals subscribed $280 towards it, but it cost considerable more, and parties failed to subscribe the balance, that the tackle and apparatus was out of order, and that it would cost $100 to put them in proper repair, and they recommend that the draw be fastened up, and no more raised until a sufficient sum be raised by individuals, and paid over to the agent or agents of the town. The town accepted the r
May 13th, 1761 AD (search for this): chapter 1
arge of maintaining Mistick bridge upon the town of Medford, it being evident that the methods then existing were most unsatisfactory. At a town-meeting held in Woburn, July 21, 1760, a committee was chosen to agree with the town of Medford upon a sum of money, by the payment of which the said town of Woburn might be finally discharged from any further care of Mistick bridge. The towns of Malden and Reading also chose committees for the same purpose. At a town-meeting held in Medford, May 13, 1761, a committee was chosen to treat with Woburn, Reading, and Malden, concerning Medford bridge, and to acquit any of them that shall comply: from all further charge, and also to treat with the General Court if there be reason. Woburn was discharged in consequence of the above vote by paying the sum of 26 pounds 13 shillings and 4 pence lawful money. Reading paid 14 pounds lawful money and Malden 16 pounds 13 shillings and 4 pence lawful money. Agreements were drawn up between Medfo
1815 AD (search for this): chapter 1
ecision of the town to leave the building of a drawbridge to the discretion of a committee did not prove satisfactory to quite a number of the inhabitants of the town, for at a meeting held May 16, 1829, only twelve days later, the town voted to instruct the committee in charge of rebuilding the bridge to build with a draw. This decision of the town to build with a draw was no doubt influenced by the fact that a shipyard had already been established above the bridge, and as early as the year 1815 a ship of 370 tons burden had been built there. The register of vessels built in Medford shows that prior to 1829 some 13 vessels had been built above the bridge, and their construction must have given employment to quite a number of mechanics and laboring men, as the demands of commerce from time to time called for a larger class of vessels; so the demands of the parties interested in shipbuilding caused the town to vote to widen the draw in the Great bridge. In 1833 Mr. George Fuller bui
... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ...