I wonder why it was assumed to be an error when a record listed John FRENCH and wife, Anne. Is it possible that their were 2 John FRENCH's living there in that time period? "In 1709-10, JOHN FRENCH and wife, ANNE, (err. for Susannah), were in the recs. at W., (vide, ante, PART ONE, p. 91), for (idem, p. PART TWO, p. 268), JOHN FRENCH, Jr. Aug. 4, 1705, m. MARY BOWNE, (dau. of Judge James Bowne, and) sister of ELIZABETH, who m. JUDGE HENRY FREEMAN, (vide, ante, this PART, p. supra). Children: Susanna, b. June 11, 1706; William, b. Jan. 15, 1707; Mary, b. June 4, 1710; Sarah, b. Nov. 25, 1712, et al., (as later W. recs. show)." And below, our writer makes two questionable assumptions: 1) The John FRENCH of W. 1670 is the same John FRENCH of Staten Island mentioned in 1688 with wife Susannah. 2) Assumes Richard FRENCH and Thomas FRENCH of Burlington bef 1700 are "Apparently allied" [JOHN FRENCH] "First Settler of W. [Woodbridge]. He was there, 1670, or before, called "a mason," (ARCH., Vol. XXI, p. 15). In 1687, he was of Staten Island, called the same, (idem, p. 205; and Vol. XXIII, p. 28), and had a wife, SUSANNAH, as in 1688, when they were witnesses to the will of THOMAS BARTLETT of "Barcla's (BARTLETT) Point over against Perth Amboy." (idem, p. 22). Myles Forster, then of N. Y. was the heir, suggesting kinship. Apparently allied, in the same records, sev. ref. are RICHARD FRENCH, and THOMAS FRENCH of BURLINGTON, bef. 1700."