roved to considerable advantage) will not be thereby hindered.
4 Whether it be consistent with Equity to cut off the capacity of a mill from the present proprietor of the place of the old mill where the respective owners have served that part of the country with their Estates in a Mill where they Improved sd streem for about thirty or forty years together unto wch queryes sundry arguments might be offered if time were given and leave thereto allowed The wch is offered to consideration per Joseph Prout.
There is still another, much smaller in size and closely written, in which Mr. Prout's queryes are answered and disposed of. After the above petition was folded it was endorsed on the back
In Council June 28, 1698.
Respited until the next Session
The General Court then, and for many years, met in two sessions each year, and the Council's action deferred action and gave time for the consideration of Mr. Prout's side of the matter.
At the next session favorable action w
ing obliged to travel as far as Noddle's Island (East Boston) to be served.
This petition affected the interests of Mr. Joseph Prout, owning as he did the Broughton mill, where, as he said, the public had been served for about thirty or forty years,e Medford people by putting in repair the old Broughton mill on the Charlestown side of the river.
In the year 1711 Joseph Prout sold to Jonathan Dunster, mill, mill-yard, buildings and Orchard one Acre also one and one-half acres of upland on the there was not any mill there at the time of the sale?
And if this is correct, it shows that while in all probability Joseph Prout built the dam, or allowed Jonathan Dunster to build it, Mr. Dunster must have the credit of building a new mill where mention of a building in the deed.
James Cutter owned the other part of the acre and three-fourths of marsh land that Joseph Prout sold to Jonathan Dunster.
Mr. Brooks says, in writing of a mill a short distance below Wear bridge, the place is ye
power we cannot say. Again, the objections raised by Prout would be stronger against this site than the other. the upper site and on land then (or later) owned by Prout, within a few years after the petition we have quotey the following, which is a copy of the deed of Joseph Prout to Jonathan Dunster referred to by Mr. Hooper.
Also let the reader note the order in which Prout conveyed the three parcels of land:
First, the acis enumeration and description of the three parcels, Prout mentioned the various appurtenances thereto belonginince Broughton built his mills, to which in his deed Prout referred not as mill, but as a millstead.
With the millstead must have been decadent.
By acquiring of Prout the acre and three quarters of meadow land in Medform the Middlesex Court File of June, 1679, in case of Prout vs. Dunster, et al.:
I Thomas Gleison aged a 6, 1656.
Evidently this was the Wayes mentioned in Prout's deed of 1710 and corresponds to present Winter str