Skip to main content

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

See other formats


V'-O 


o 


t^      f^ 


m/mMwm 


m^St¥ 


m^ 


2 


t 


f.VZ ////■//.. vv.v^v 


A    BRANCH 


OF    THE 


WOODRUFF    STOCK 


PART  II. 


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- 
hausted. 


MORRISTOWN,  N.  J. 

Printed  at  "The  Jerseyman"  Office 

1903 


A    BRANCH 


OF   THE 


WOODRUFF    STOCK 


PART  II. 


COMPILED  BY 

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"  >^>  >'> 


MORRISTOWN,  N.  J. 

Printed  at  "The  Jerseyman"  Office 

1903 


/*  ^ 


^0^ 


fB^ 


1 

SKETCHES 

Part  I. 

I. 

Mr.  John  Gosmer. 

11. 

John  Woodruff,  The  Immigrant 

III. 

The  Two  Sons  John. 
Part  II. 

IV. 

Wt'^tfield  Woodruffs. 
Part  III. 

V. 

(To  follow). 

NOTES 

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

ABBREVIATIONS 

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, 

Introduction. 
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- 

1892. 


s. 

T.  R. 

s. 

T.  R. 

s. 

T.  R. 

E. 

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sey, and  an  unpublished  chart  of  the  1699-1700  Division 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. 


IV.  WESTFIELD    WOODRUFFS 


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

%g^    ®|?P   f^^iAi"^    '3Ug^   ^x%^    ^ 

WESTFIELD   WOODRUFFS 


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. 


50  WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS 

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. 


WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS  51 

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. 


52  WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS 

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 
him. 

Hannah  ye  Wife  of 

Joseph  Woodruff 

Died  August  the  lith 

Anno  Domini  1743 
In  ye  58th  Year  of  her 
Age. 
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. 


WESTFIELI)  WOODRUFFS  53 

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 


54  WESTFIELD   WOODRUFFS 

"  (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, 


WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS  55 

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. 


56  WESTFIELD   WOODRUFFS 

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 
"opponents."ioo 

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 ", ^ 0 ^  "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. 


WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS  57 

*'  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. 


58  WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS 

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. 


WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS  69 

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. 


60  WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS 

"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- 


WESTFIELD  WOODRUFFS  Gl 

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


NOTES. 

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 


NOTES  63 

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 


64  NOTES 

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.  0  :  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 
Trenton. 

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 


NOTES  66 

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.