Skip to main content

Full text of "A branch of the Woodruff stock;"

See other formats



t^ f^ 






f.VZ ////■//.. vv.v^v 





From July 31, 1903, Part II will be on sale at the 
New Jersey Historical Society's Library, West Park St., 
Newark, N. J. ; for the benefit of the Society's book-fund. 
The price of Parts I and II, together, is One Dollar. 
Holders of part I, on applying at the Library, can obtain 
a copy of Part II without charge until the edition is ex- 


Printed at "The Jerseyman" Office 







FRANCIS E. WOODRUFF, B. A. (Yale, 1864) 

Life Member of the New Jersey Historical Society; New York 
Historical Society; and Washington Association of New Jersey 

»>»> ie *^ 3 9 *■ 

^-j ;■>> J", ,'. •, ; >', ''' t" >^> >'> 


Printed at "The Jerseyman" Office 


/* ^ 





Part I. 


Mr. John Gosmer. 


John Woodruff, The Immigrant 


The Two Sons John. 
Part II. 


Wt'^tfield Woodruffs. 
Part III. 


(To follow). 


Notes are numbered consecutively, and are referred to 
by their number instead of being i-epeated, thrcaghout the 
three papers. 


Hotuell. The Early History of Southampton, L. I. 

By George Rogers Howell, M. A. (Yale), 3d Ed 
Records of the Town of Southampton (printed.. 
W. S. P. Same, Mr. William S. Pelletreau, 

Orig. Same, Original records at Southampton. 
W. Early Long Island Wills of Suffolk County : 
1691-1703, with notes by Wm. S. Pellet- 
reau, A. M. 
Hatfield. History of Elizabeth, New Jersey. 

By Rev. Edwin F. Hatfield, D.D. 
T. Trenton. 

Inscriptions. Inscriptions on Tombstones and Monu- 
ments in the Burying Grounds of The 
First Presbyterian Church and St. John's 
Church at Elizabeth, New Jersey, 1664- 



T. R. 


T. R. 


T. R. 


L. I. 

Map drawn by Mr. O. L. P. Meyer (Elizabeth, N. J.) 
from Sheet No. 6 of the Topographic Atlas of New Jer- 
sey, and an unpublished chart of the 1699-1700 Division 
prepared by the late Mr. Ernest L. Meyer. 

Roselle (on the Map) is just west of Elizabeth, Westfield 
just east of Plainfield. 


#r^ d#ii} #1^ ci^ ^ 
fte pi|< :|pj(5 ':^i®g: pl^ m 

%g^ ®|?P f^^iAi"^ '3Ug^ ^x%^ ^ 


A Joseph Woodruff (1676-1742) lies buried at West- 
field, New Jersey, whose existenee in his own right has 
not been recognized by modern historians. These have 
merged the scanty records of his life in that of his Eliza- 
beth Town cousin Joseph (1674-1746), or sometimes in 
that cousin's son Joseph ; but their error has been the more 
excusable because the cousins were only two years apart 
in date of birth, and because not only they but their 
fathers bore the same given names as well as surname. 
The Etown father, John Woodruff (1637-91), was the 
elder son of the Immigrant, John Woodruff (1604-70), 
while the Westfield Joseph's father was the younger son 
and brother, John Woodruff (1650-1703), of Southampton, 
Long Island ; from which town our Joseph emigrated to 
New Jersey, ® ^ 

His Westfield tombstone tells us that he departed this 
life February the 2nd, Anno Domini 1741-2, in the 65th 
year of his age ; so he was born in 1676 or 1677. While 
living at Southampton, and some seventeen or eighteen 
years old, he was quite possibly one of the two "schollers" 
for whom in 1694 his father subscribed "att twelve shill- 
ings In cash per scholler for the Terme of Six Months," 
they to be taught " In the hours following viz, from Eight 
to Eleven a Clocke In the forenoone, and from one to five 
of the clocke In ye afternoone";^^ but nothing is cer- 

88 See end. 

89 S T R II p. 360. 


tainly known excepting that he was included as the second 
son of John Woodruff in the 1698 list of the inhabitants of 
Southampton, and that his father's will, signed on the 
"14 day of January Anno Dom 1700 alias 1701", treated 
him as one who had already gone from home. ^There were 
good reasons why the second son should have sought a 
career elsewhere. His father although a wealthy land- 
owner was because of extortionate taxation land-poor, and 
there were five brothers and four sisters to be provided 
for : while there were influential relatives in New Jersey, 
where in 1699 there was to be a distribution of rich lands; 
and his cousin Robert Woolley of Southampton was also 
to become an Etown Associate and draw a Westfield lot. 
^° So Joseph transferred the history of our line from 
Long Island to New Jersey. 

Because in 1664 the shifty Duke of York conveyed the 
territory now known as New Jersey to Lord Berkeley and 
Sir George Carteret while his oversea agent, Gov. Nich- 
olls, was under the Duke's authority confirming the Indian 
deeds of the Etown Associates, there came the century of 
contest between the "Proprietors" of East Jersey (as suc- 
sors of Carteret) and the "Associates"; in which all on 
both sides could feel they had been wronged. For many 
years neither side thrust home, but in 1693 the Proprietors, 
in the name of James Fullerton, brought an action of 
Trespass and Ejectment against one Jeffry Jones because 
of his refusal to take out a patent from them for his lands 
(his, under Nicholl's grant) and to pay them "Quit Rents", 
Judgment (on a "special" verdict) by the Court having 
been rendered against him (and against the "general" 
verdict of the jury) he appealed to King William in Coun- 

90 Part I, p. 24: Howell, p. 408: Hatfield, p. 277. 


cil; by whom on Feb'y 25, 169(3-97, the judgment was set 
aside and so Gov. Nicholl's grant confirmed.' ^ 

Encouraged in this and other ways the Associates de- 
cided to distribute hitherto undivided lands and by March 
1700, the task had been completed. The pioneers found 
their way (see Map) by blazed trails across Crane's ford 
(now Cranford) to Westfield,'* which was long the ex- 
treme border of civilization. For the region that now in 
many parts has almost the "finish" of the old countries 
was then a wilderness, that in 1665 had SDld ten acres for 
a penny, with a soil generally of stiff clay or gravelly loam 
for the wooden plows and harrows to grapple with, and 
with much heavy timber to clear away. Wolves compell- 
ed a bounty of thirty shillings : and there were many bat- 
tles to be fought with the Indians, who only ceased to 
trouble when in the middle of the century the French war 
drew them away never to return in considerable numbers. 
So like other colonists the settlers long took their muskets 
to church with them.'' The "homestead plantation", 

the 100 acre lot No. 148,'* of 

which Joseph Woodruff took possession in 1700, lay "a 
Cros Raway River" at a great bend a mile down-stream 
from Cranford, and some three miles south-east of the mod- 
ern town of Westfield. To-day, looking at the amphitheatre 
from the old Raritan Road that leads through the bend 
south-westerly, or from the new north-and-south Walnut 
Avenue that crosses the old road, one sees broad, almost 
level fields of green — with here and there hedgerows, and 

91 Hatfield, pp. 80, 241, 242. 

92 "Westfields," the rich fields west of Etown, (County Histories of 
Clayton and Ricord.) 

93 See end. 

94 See end. 


orchards, and farmhouses half hidden in their shade trees 
— sloping gently towards the dark background of woods 
that fringes and marks the semi-circular course of the 
river. At the south-west the tall smokestacks of the 
American Felt Mills show over the woods against the sky. 
Even now a pastoral scene very pleasant to the eye, in its 
wilder beauty it must have been a home to love that by 
1714 Joseph had wrested from the wilderness for his wife 
Hannah and their growing family. 

In Joseph's will the eldest son named (John) was not 
born until 1704, but as the daughter Abigail (Gold) was 
among the five children already provided for she may 
have been the first born, or in the beginning of the settle- 
ment deaths may have left no record. Certainly, because 
in 1699 Joseph would have been some twenty-three years 
of age and his wife Hannah perhaps sixteen, it would be 
expected that they came together to New Jersey : and there 
was an abundant choice at Southampton of maidens of her 
given name. ^ ^ Practically, however, nothing is known 
about the wife and mother excepting that there were ten 
sons and three daughters to mourn when but a few months 
after her comrade's death she followed to a grave beside 

Hannah ye Wife of 

Joseph Woodruff 

Died August the lith 

Anno Domini 1743 
In ye 58th Year of her 
Their married life had been one long anxiety. Barely 

95 In the 1698 List (Howell p. 34) there were some 34 unmarried (be- 
Bides married) of the variously spelled name of "Hannah" in a total 
number of 350 women. 


had they safely passed the hardships and dangers of the 
first days of the new sottloniont wh(Mi they wore plun^'od 
into the forefront of the battle between the Proprietors and 
the Associates, defending their home in the historic 
Vaughan Ejectment Suit. 

In 168G James Emott received from the Proprietors a 
patent for 100 acres each of arable, pasture and woodland. 
It was claimed that at the time he had work done on the 
land, but no record has been found that between the 1C90- 
1700 division and his death in April, 1713, he ever dis- 
puted Joseph's undisturbed possession of the home his 
labor was carving out of the wilderness. James Emott 
left his claim to his widow, a step-daugher of Gov. Car- 
teret and later of Col. Tovvnley. The widow on July 1, 
1714, was married to the Rev. Edward Vaughan; and in 
that 3'ear's November term of the Supreme Court the hus- 
band brought the action of ejectment. Extracts from the 
Etown Bill in Chancery (page 46) of 1745 and the Answer 
(page 122) of the Associates state the two sides of the 
question with sufBcient clearness. 

THE PROPRIETORS. " And your Orators do further 
"show unto 5^our Excellency (the Governor) That in 
" the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the Term of 
" November in the first Year of King George the First 
" (1714) an Action of Ejectment was brought on the 
" demise of Edward Vaughan, as Assignee of James 
" Emott, for recovery of the possession of that 300 acres 
" of land which had been granted by the Proprietors to 
" James Emott, by Patent, dated the 6th day of April, 
"1686, * * *j and of which tract (elsewhere, of a 
" part of which tract) one Joseph Woodruff had pos- 
" sessed himself under colour of the Clinker Lot Right 


" (1699-1700 division) aforesaid; which came to trial in 

" the Terme of May, in the second year of King George 

"the First (1715) and therein a special verdict was 

" found setting forth the Title of the Proprietors of East 

** Jersey on the part of the Plaintiff, and the said Indian 

* ' purchase by (the Associates) Bailey and others, and 

" Nicholl's Grant, on the part of the Defendant; which 

" special verdict was for sundry terms argued by Coun- 

••cil learned in the law on both sides, and afterwards 

"upon mature deliberation thereon had, the said Su- 

" preme Court gave judgment for the Plaintiff, to wit, 

" in the term of May in the fourth year of King George 

"the First (1718); which judgement still remains in 

" Force unreversed, tho' a Writ of Error was brought 

" thereon before the Governor and Council." 

THE ASSOCIATES. " In particular that when Joseph 

" Woodruff, one of Your Majesty's petitioners' ancestors, 

<'9 6 by Writ of Error, brought his Cause before the 

* ' Governor and Council of this Province in the fourth 

" year of Your Majesty's late Royal Father (1718), in 

" order to obtain a Judgment thence and from thence, 

" if Judgment were given against him, he intended to 

' ' have appealed to his said Majesty then King of Great 

" Britain * * » jn Council, the said Governor and 

" Council would never be prevailed upon to give a Judg- 

" ment in the said Cause, but after ten or twelve years 

" delay and a vast Expense in the Cause, the said Cause 

" dropt without being decided." 

96 The Woodruffs who signed the "Answer" were Samuel ; Samuel, 

Jr. ; Thomas ; Thomas, Jr. ; Cooper ; Abner ; Robert ; Nathaniel ; Jacob ; 

Daniel; Abraham; John; John 5th; Joseph; Hezekiah; Jonathan ! 
David : Isaac ; Ezekiel ; Tim. Jr. ; Isaac Jr.; Jeremiah. Of these Thomas 
and Hezekiah certainly, and several of the others probably, were child- 
ren and descendants of Joseph of Westfield, 


It is evident that in face of Kin^ William's adverse de- 
cision in 1697 (page 49), and of Joseph's stern determina- 
tion to appeal to England rather than submit to injustice, 
there was a grave dilemma confronting the Governor and 
Council. Should they decide for Joseph it would be a fatal 
blow to the entire claim of the Proprietors; if they decided 
against him it could only stave off that evil a little time 
and then bring from England both the fatal blow and the 
humiliation for themselves of a second adverse decision. 
So they naturally welcomed delay. 

In 1719, they ordered a transcript of the Supreme Court 
record, and the filing of errors by the defendant. Two 
years later more time was granted to the defendant. After 
another two years, on the motion of the defendant, the 
transcript was returned to the Supreme Court *' to be ex- 
" amined and amended." Still another twelvemonth and 
the amended record was "brought up" by Chief Justice 
Trent j^"" but the defendant consented to one more year's 
postponement. At last, in 1725, a "re-hearing in this 
" Cause" was ordered, and on August 19th the "Cause" 
made its final appearance before the Governor and Coun- 
cil ; but after all the long delay with only this meagre and 
inconclusive outcome : — 

"Councill was re-heard on both sides in this Cause." 
'■'■Curia advisare vult.^* 

And the Court kept on deliberating to the end ; if it could 
be called an end that was never finished. ^^ Already, 
in 1720, to guard against renewed attacks by the Pro- 
prietors the associates had appointed a Committee of 

97 In October. 1902, this record had apparently not yet been returned 
to the Supreme Court. 

98 N. J. Archives, Vol. XIV : pp. 93, 112. 194, 199, 243, 273, 275, 288, 299. 


Seven. ^ ® After 1725 there was further litigation by the 
Proprietors. The Associates sold lands to provide funds 
for defense. They petitioned the King. The above-quoted 
Bill in Chancery and its Answer followed. Then came 
the Revolution, and the issue dropped out of sight. " Such 
"was the end of this famous struggle, continued for a 
" whole century, and resulting in the vindication of the 
"original purchasers of the soil, and the defeat of their 

For Joseph and Hannah, however, the sword of uncer- 
taint}^ hung suspended until their deaths. It was on Jan- 
uary 15th, 1742, that "Joseph Woodruff, Jr., of the Bur- 
" rough of Elizabeth ", ^ ^ "Being sickly and weakly 
"in Body," made his will;io3 and on Feb'y 2d he 
died. His executors were his wife Hannah, friend Wil- 
liam Millerio3 and son Thomas. To his " Dearly Be- 
" loved Wife " he bequeathed the " Best Room in my now 
" (or 'new,' text obscure) Dwelling House"; one-third of 
the " Improvement" (apparently, income, usufruct) of all 
his lands; one-third of his " Moveable Estate " (personal 
property) and any overplus of the latter after all charges 
had been met. To the heirs who had already received 
their portions, yiz : John, Jonathan, William, Samuel and 
Abigail (Gold), he gave five shillings each, to be paid out 
of his "Moveable Estate." Between Thomas and Heze- 
kiah he divided "all my Homestead plantation which I 
" now live on Situate, Lying and Being adjoyning to the 

99 The Joseph Woodruff placed on it in 1729 (Hatfield, p. 311) was 
probably, from his connections with the still unfinished Vaughan Eject- 
ment Suit, the Joseph of Westfield, and not the cousin of Etown. 

100 Hatfield ; pp. 307, 318, 364, 372. 

101 Westfield was not set off from Etown as a township until 1794. 

102 Trenton : C. : 475. 

103 Hatfield : p. 206. 


*' west side of the Rahaway River," and " Two pieices or 
" parcels of Salt Marsh or Meadow Lying and being at 
"the Bottom of Tremby's Neck".!"* To Joseph he 
gave the " House and Land " bought from Daniel Tal- 
mage, December 11th, 1741. To Nathaniel he gave the 
" House and Plantation bought of Joseph Bird, lately de- 
" ceased." To Isaac he gave " my piece of Salt Meadow 
"Lying and Being by Murthes Creek ";^'*'* and 
Nathaniel was to pay him thirty pounds. To Benjamin 
he gave "my Negro Boy named Lewey"; and forty 
pounds to be paid him (by Thomas and Hezekiah) when 
" he shall arrive at the age of 16 years old." To each of 
his daughters Sarah and Joanna Woodruff he gave sixteen 
pounds. Surelj', he had well provided for his goodly fam- 
ily ! Forced from his boyhood's home by extortionate tax- 
ation, into a struggle with the hardships and dangers of a 
wilderness, then to be harassed by the long, anxious con- 
test in defence of his home, that he so overcame the ob- 
stacles to success and died more than ordinarily prosperous 
for his day plainly shows that Jonathan's^ °® "honored 
" father Joseph" was a brave, strong man. ^'''' 

Hezekiah Woodruff was worse off in the matter of rec- 
ords even than his father Joseph. At the time of his birth 
in 1724 Westfield had begun to have a community life of 
its own apart from Elizabeth, yet has left no annals of 
that period. A good authority has stated that a young 

104 Near the mouth of Rahway River. The modern spelling is per- 
haps Tremley ; and see Trembly in Hatfield pp. 267, 509. Until quite 
recently the inland farmers made annual pilgrimages to the salt mead- 
ows by the sea to increase their store of hay. 

105 Said to be the modern Morse's Creek, emptying into the Kills 
near Bayway and Elizabeth. 

106 Will, Trenton, Liber 18, Folio 645. 

107 See the end. 


man who had sinned burned the earUer church records to 
destroy the minutes of his trial and conviction; and, at 
least, although the church was organized in 1727 its rec- 
ords date back only to 1759, while the town records do not 
begin until 1794 when Westfield was set off as a township. 
Up to 1759, therefore, our chief sources of local informa- 
tion are wills and tombstones. 

From the latter we learn that Hezekiah died October 
22nd, 1776, in his 52d year; and Mary, his wife, on 
July 21st, 1772, in the 44th year of her age. In his 
will (T.— 20: 37), dated October 25, 1776,1° » Heze- 
kiah named as an executor his "Loving Father John 
"Stites" (1706-1782); whose will (T. 23: 436, dated 
Feb. 13th, 1781) named as daughter " Mary Woodruff , 
"deceased"; while the will (T. 35: 512, dated June 28th, 
1796) of John's Son, Dr. Hezekiah Stites, named as 
nephew. Dr. Hezekiah Stites Woodruff (1754-1842), who 
was one of the sons of Hezekiah and Mary Woodruff. As 
Hezekiah Woodruff's own father was unquestionably 
Joseph Woodruff ; as his mother died too soon after his 
father's death to have given him a step- father; and as in 
early records "father" often stood for "father-in-law" 
8, there can be no doubt that, in accordance with our 
family traditions, Hezekiah's wife Mary was a daughter 
of John Stites. 

The Hon. John Stites, ancestor of many honored citi- 
zens of New Jersey, was born at Hempstead, L. I., in 
1706, and died at Springfield, New Jersey, April 21st, 
1782. He was a Chosen Freeholder and Justice of Etown, 
and a Deputy in the Provincial Congress of New Jersey in 

108 The will is dated October 25th, three days later than the date of 
death on the tombstone, presumably through some error of carelessness. 


1775. As his tombstone at Springfield tells us, he "lived 
" beloved and died lamented by Church and State ",ioo 

No other trace of Hezekiah's life has been found up to 
the date of his will. Disabled by the death of his wife in 
July, 1772; at least at the end, "Sick and weak of body"; 
and dying at the very beginning of the Revolutionary 
War, he may not have been able to do more than sympa- 
thize with the known ardent patriotism of his brothers and 
his sons ; but it is quite as likely that our ignorance of his 
share is due to lack of records. From what is known of 
his circumstances it is certain that he was well-born, well- 
married, well-off, and a respected citizen; to judge from 
his sons, he may have been very much more. 

In his will, after a special gift of a team of horses, a 
yoke of oxen, &c., &c., to his son Richard, he bequeathed 
his property in trust to his executors, John Stites and 
Abner Corey, for the support until sold of his family; the 
net proceeds to then be "put at intrust " for five years 
for the same purpose. At the end of the period Hezekiah 
Stites Woodruff was to receive 50 pounds; Hannah 
(Winants) 5 pounds; the two children of Abigail (Pack, 
Paiks or Parks — records obscure) 5 pounds equally divi- 
ded; Margaret, Mary and Sarah 30 pounds each. The 
" Remainding part " of his estate was to be equally divi- 
ded between his "five sons," Hezekiah Stites, Richard, 
Hiram, Benjamin and John.i^o This provision of a 

109 Hatfield; Littell's Passaic Valley ; Clayton's Hist of Union Oonnty. 

110 Of our ancestor, DR. HEZEKIAH STITES WOODRUFF, a sketch 
is to be given in Part III. For RICHARD, letters of administration 
(24 : 22) were granted August 1st, 1780. In her will (T. 33 : 361) of 1793, 
MARY names her nieces Mary Woodruff Winans, daughter of her 
brother-in-law Samuel Winans, and Mary Allwood, daughter of Thomas 
Allwood, dec'd. For all the children, search would doubtless be re- 
warded with much information. 


"trust," not being common in that day, was possibly- 
made necessary by the Revolution's disturbance of exist- 
ing conditions. As will be shown in Part III, it was ap- 
parently from the same cause that our great-grandfather 
sold his share of the Westfield lands, and so severed us 
from our first New Jersey home ; near which, however, 
many cousins still well maintain the family name. 

In the later deeds conveying our ancestors' lands a 
boundary mark quite often named is "' Tooker's (Tucker's) 
" lane " which (now closed) used to be the way from the 
Raritan Road, near where it is crossed by the modern 
Walnut Avenue, to the late John Tucker's attractive old 
residence (occupied in 1902 by Mr. Joseph Holland) on 
the bank of the Rah way. This is said to have been built 
as a home, and school, by Jean Gabriel and Marie de Ver- 
mont Touchembert, formerly of the island of Guadaloupe, 
who in 1794 bought the land from Jacob Winans, who had 
in 1884 bought it from Dr. Hezekiah Stites Woodruff ''*, 
A short distance to the eastward of this house (see mark 
in No. 148 on Map), on the land of Mr. and Mrs. 
Marx Riefel ®^, there are still traces of the founda- 
tions (and well) of a good-sized dwelling-house, that 
from a knoll looked over the high bank with its fringe 
of trees across the river to the wooded shore beyond. 
After John Tucker bought the property from the Touch- 
emberts in 1802 this older building was no longer used as 
a dwelling, but it was still standing in the lifetime of the 
present neighbors ; a house built of stone for the ground 
story, and above of oak. From the situation and the cir- 
cumstances there need be no doubt that it was the home of 
our ancestor Hezekiah (died 1776), even if not the "now 
dwelhng" of his father Joseph (died 1742); so is an ad- 


ditional inducement to their descendants to visit the old 
" liomestead plantation." 


N. B. Notes are numbered consecutively, and are referred to by their 
number instead of being repeated, throughout the papers. 

88. See Part I.; and Proceedings. Vol. II, No. 2, (May 1900), page 115. 
In his will John Woodruff (1637-1691). first of Etown, named only one son 
Joseph. There is abundant evidence (See Hartfield. Index: e. g. page 
386) that this son was the Joseph (1674-1746) buried in the Presbyterian 
graveyard at Etown (Inscriptions, No. 1894); so he of 1676-1742-i. e. 
born only two years later, — could not have also been that John's 
son. Nor could a Joseph born 1676 have been his grandson, because his 
eldest son (John, of course) was not born until 1665-66. In West Jersey 
there was a contemporary,— a Thomas Woodruff of Fenwick's Colony, 
who also had a son named Joseph of apparently much the same age as 
the two East Jersey namesakes: but that Joseph is on record (N. J. 
Archives "Vol. XXI, pp. 617, 629, 632) as a resident ot Salem Town, not 
Westfield. In brief, no New Jersey Woodruff of the period has been 
found who could have been either the father or the grandfather of our 
Joseph Woodruff, Jr.; as he was called, doubtless to distinguish him 
from his only slightly senior Etown cousin. Who then was Joseph 
Woodruff of Westfield ? 

In the "List of ye Inhabitants of Southampton, old and young. Christ- 
ians and Hethen freemen and servants, white and black. Anno 1698" 
(Howell, p. 34) the family of Etown John Woodruff's younger brother 
John includes a "Joseph" as the second son. The father in his will (E. 
L. I., p. 261), signed January 14th, 1701, bequeathed unto his son "Joseph 
Woodruffe ye sum of twenty pounds current money of sd Province," 
and also willed that if either of his sons Nathaniel or Isaac "shall depart 
this life before they come to ye age of twenty-one years then my will is 
that my son Jonathan Woodruffe shall have his part deceased to him and 
his heirs forever and if all my sd three sons namely Nathaniel, Isaac and 
Jonathan shall depart this life without heirs then my will isyt yeaforesd 
three parcels of land given to them as above be equally divided between 
my two sons before mentioned namely Joseph and Benjamin and their 
heirs forever." 

Jonathan, who as above was to receive (besides twenty pounds when 
he came of age) only a reyersionary interest in his father's lands, was the 
youngest son, perhaps sixteen years old. As no later mention of him has 
been found on record he may have been in ill health, or there may have 
been some other reason why he too was made an exception; but, when 
every one of the other brothers was left a portion of the father's only too 
abundant lands, that the second son (Joseph) then over 21, should have 
been left (besides twenty pounds) only a reversion of the reversionary 
interests of younger brothers is strong evidence that he had already re- 
ceived his portion and gone to a far country. That after diligent search 


no trace of Joseph later than the date of the will has been found in 
Southampton or Suffolk County further strengthens the probability. 

In addition it should be noted that the final "e" of our surname Wood- 
reeve (14) was retained in Kent down to our emigration in 1G39-10. John 
(1650-1703) of Southampton so retained it in the will above for both him- 
self and his children, including Joseph; and the Westfield defendant 
was "Joseph Woodruffe" (N. J. Archives, Vol. XIV., p. 93). Whereas 
John (1637-91) of Etown signed his original will (Trenton: Old Essex 
Wills) "John Woodruff." and his son Joseph also signed without the 
"e" (Hatfield; pp. 247: 284. On p. 312 where both cousins sign there is 
a "Joseph Woodroff" and a "Joseph Woodruffe"). This later retention 
(at least until 1719 though afterwards dropped) of the "e" by the West- 
field Joseph points to New Jersey as the "far country." We know that 
in the 1699 (for some unknown reason called "Clinker Lot") division 
many of the settlers of Westfield came from Southampton (Hatfield, p. 
251); that a "Joseph Woodrufe" drew a lot (Etown Book B; Hatfield, p. 
307): that the Joseph who drew the Westfield lot was beyond question 
the one (1676-1742) buried at Westfield; and that, without reasonable 
doubt, he was neither son nor grandson of any Woodruff on record as 
living at that time in New Jersey, but is needed to account for the Long 
Islaud son. Taking it by-and-large. therefore, it is evidently safe to be- 
lieve that the Joseph Woodruffe of Westfield was the Joseph Woodruffe 
of Southampton. 

93 See County Histories. The "church" was at Etown or Woodbridge 
until in 1727 Westfie'd organized one of its own; the first building, how- 
ever, a log house, not being erected until 1730 (Clayton). While there 
are no church records extant for the period concerned that might give 
evidence there is reason to believe that our Joseph Woodruff was an 
Elder at both Woodbridge and Westfield (where his eldest son John 
was a Deacon). Dr. Hatfield, p. 358, explicitly referring to the Joseph 
Woodruff who was the defendant in the Vaughan Ejectment Suit (un- 
questionably the Joseph of Westfield) states that he was an Elder, but 
confuses him with his cousin Joseph of Etown who was also an Elder 
(of the Etown church); just as on p. 582 he made the Joseph of "ten 
sons" (unmistakably our Joseph, Jr.,) a son of that cousin. Similarly 
in his Historical Discourse, the Kev. James Hunttiug (on whom Dr. 
Hatfield doubtless relied), evidently not aware that there ever was a 
Westfield Joseph, names as first of their surname at Westfield Joseph's 
sons John (1704-68) and Jonathan (1707-77), both buried near their father. 

One now visiting the well-kept graveyard at Westfield cannot but 
feel surprised that Mr. Huntting could have failed to see the tombstone 
of Joseph quite near the front gate; but the surprise vanishes on reading 
Kicord's statement that by 1865 the old cemetery had become choked by 
young trees, weeds, vines and berry bushes, so that in Mr. Huntting's 
time it was doubtless practically impossible to obtain information from 
the tombstones. 

94 Map. Etown Book B. Dr. Hatfield, p. 307, states that Lot No. 148 
was drawn by Joseph Woodruff; and some 40 acres of the Lot No. 148 


on the late Mr. Meyer's very valuable chart (not yet published) have 
been traced to Joseph (as doubtless if time were taken all could be) from 
the present (1902) occupants, Mr. and Mrs. Marx Riefel, through deeds 
and wills as follows :— 
1864. Riefel from Stoddard ; Etown ; 15 ; 269. 
1859. Stoddard from Miller ; Etown : 5 ; 205. 
1859. Miller from Clark et als ; Etown ; 4 ; 237. 

(Clark et als. heirs of Joseph Tooker (Tuckei) heir of John 
Tooker, who died Intestate in 1834 ; see Supreme Court Report 
of Oct. 29, 1834. Trenton, Book of Partitions, p. 281). 
1803, Tooker from Touchembert, Newark F: 409. 
1794. Touchembert from Winans, Newark BB : 125. 
1784. Winans from Woodruff, Newark F : 339. 

The wills (both at Trenton) are :— 
1776. Hezekiah Stites Woodruff through Hezekiah Woodruff's will, 

20 : 37. 
1743. Hezekiah Woodruff through Joseph Woodruff's will. : 475. 
Etown Book B. (soon to be published it may be hoped), however, 
gives Joseph's lot as No. 149 instead of No. 148 ; but as its No. 148 men- 
tions Joseph Woodruff's No. 149 as next northeast, and does not mention 
the Rahway river, tbe unique descriptive item in its No. 149 "East 40 
chane a Cros Raway River", in substantial agreement with Joseph's 
will, shows conclusively that the lot named as 149 in Book B is the lot 
marked 148 on Mr. Meyer's chart. Very likely as in other cases the Nos. 
of the lots were changed. 

Further, James Emmott's Lot No. 25. " 300 on Raway River." in the 
proprietors' sketch map attached to the Etown Bill, roughly corres- 
ponds to the above. 

107 Most of the information here given about the children has been 
come upon incidentally, but may help in their researchf s those more 
closely interested. An asterisk denotes burial in the Westfield grave- 
yard. All wills referred to without special mention are on record at 

The eldest son (by his tombstone a Deacon) JOHN WOODRUFF* 
was born in 1704 and died in Sept. 1768. He lived where Mr. Sylvanus 
Pierson was living in 1839 (Huntting). His will. 1 : 341, names wife, 
Elinor, and children John, Moses, and Cornelius. JONATHAN,* 
(1707-July, 1777), married first Jennet,* (1707-50) ; and second Prudence* 
(1709-81). His will, 18-645, names wife Prudence* ; children Noah, 
Aaron, Daniel, Mary (Scudder), Anne (Badgeley). In 1750 he was living 
a mile north of the Westfield church at the four corners on the moun- 
tain ro6d. (County History). Of WILLIAM, no record has been 
found. SAMUEL* (1710-54) in his will F, 208, names wife Elizabeth 
and daughters (both under 20) Abigail and Rachel. He may have had a 
first wife Abigail, 1712-48. ISAAC, married first Mary* (1716-Dec. 16. 
1760). By the Westfield church records (see end of note) an Isaac 
Woodruff, on Nov. 19, 1761, married Mary Liitle ; and on No. 12, 1766, an 
Isaac Woodruff married Abigail Stites. Littell in his "Passaic Valley," 
p. 407, &c., states that Abigail daughter of John Stites (1706-82) married 


Isaac Woodruff, Esquire, of Etowu ; while the will (23 : 436-40) of John 
Stites names daughters Mary Woodruff (wife of Isaac's brother Heze- 
kiah) and Abigail Woodruff. The only land bequeathed Isaac by his 
father Joseph was a piece of salt meadow near Etown, and the name 
"Isaac" has not been chanced on in this generation of his Etown 
cousins. An Isaac Woodruff, of suitable dates (1721-Oct. 17, 1803) and a 
wife Sarah (1727-1799) are buried (Inscriptions. Nos. 1892, 1893) in the 
Etown Presbyterian Church yard ; and there is a will, proved December, 
1803. There is thus a possibility that the Issac of Westfield became the 
Isaac of Etown mentioned in Hatfield (see Index) as a prominent oiti- 
zen and patriot. He was a member of the Essex County Kevolutionary 
Committee of Correspondence, and one of the Commissioners for the 
purchase of arms and camp equipage. Of BENJAMIN nothing certain 
has been ascertained. There is a will (29 : 533), proved Nov. 27th, 1756, 
of a Benjamin Woodruff of Franklin in Bergen ; whose wife was Jane, 
and children Benjamin, Joseph, Joshua, Daniel, Elizabeth and Moses. 
THOMAS* (1722-April 2, 1804) married first Mary* (1714-53,) and second, 
on January 31, 1763, Rebekah* (1738-1818), by the church records Kebec 
oa Merry. He was a Judge of Common Pleas (Newark Deeds, F. ; 339). 
On December 6, 1774, he was appointed a member of the Essex County 
Committee of Correspondence, or Observation (Clayton, p. 64; Hat- 
field, p. 412), and he was otherwise prominent as a patriot. 

By the evidence of his father's will, Thomas, Hezekiah, Nathaniel and 
Joseph were without "Lawfull Issue" on Jan. 15, 1742. Of HEZEKIAH*, 
our ancestor, what little is known is told in the text. Of the two others, 
and of their sisters, nothing has been learned. Of them and of all 
doubtless much could be gleaned from the Trenton, County seats, and 
Westfield records, including tombstones. 

N. B. The references to the Westfield church records have been made 
through the courtesy of Mrs. Henry C. Cooke (H. R, C). of Westfield ; 
who will it is hoped censent to the publication of her copy of the Wood- 
ruff marriages (1759-1803) in the Appendix to the coming Part III.