Due to the recent inquiries of the STOUT ancestors, I've decided to try again to make connections to other listers' families. I have Amy STOUT born Jan 1809, supposedly in Tompkins Co., NY according to her tombstone. A history of Huron Co.OH, lists her siblings as Jonathan, David, Eliza, Hannah, and Emily. Amy's parents were Jonathan STOUT and Elizabeth JEFFERY, who were married Dec 1805 in Monmouth Co., NJ. Elizabeth JEFFERY STOUT was born about 1785 in NJ according to the 1850 census in OH where she was enumerated with her daughter's family. My elder Jonathan STOUT's mother was Amy WHITE according to family notes. I do not know his father's first name. (He did not show up with his wife in the 1850, so I presume he had died. He and his wife were not buried in Huron Co.,OH, unknown where.) Looking to make connections or learn more about this family. Thanks, LaVonne "Where there is an open mind, there will always be a frontier."-Charles F. Kettering BARE/BARRE in CA, OH, NY, & PA. EASTERWOOD, FREEMAN, HUNTER, SAYLES, in OH GIFFORD in OH, NY, & MA JEFFEREE/JEFFREES/JEFFREY in NJ & NY. MITCHELL & STOUT in NJ, NY, & PA. WALTER in OH & Minn. And across the pond... BARBER, BRABBEN/BRABBINS, ROBERTS, SHREEVE, WEST, WOODS in Adelby, Heckingham, Martham, Norton Subcourse, Raveningham, Thorpe Next Haddiscoe, Thurlton, Tofts Monks in Norfolk, EN >From: [email protected] >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: NJMONMOU-D Digest V02 #366 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:01:14 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com ([207.40.200.39]) by >mc7-f38.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat, 23 Nov >2002 18:02:20 -0800 >Received: (from [email protected])by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id >gAO21EpB027621;Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:01:14 -0700 >Message-Id: <[email protected]> >X-Loop: [email protected] >X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/volume02/366 >Precedence: list >Return-Path: [email protected] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2002 02:02:20.0820 (UTC) >FILETIME=[85F0FD40:01C2935D] > ><< message2.txt >> ><< message4.txt >> ><< message6.txt >> ><< message8.txt >> ><< message10.txt >> _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

BURLINGTON CO. NJ, 29 August 1860, PO Mt. Holly, Evesham Twp. p. 1144 1144 1 1527 1499 WILKENS Ruth A. 25 f w NJ 1144 2 1527 1499 WILKENS Joshua H. 11 m w NJ 1144 3 1527 1499 WILKENS Ruth A. 9 f w NJ 1144 4 1527 1499 WILKENS Emma 8 f w NJ 1144 5 1527 1499 WILKENS Ida S. 2 f w NJ 1144 6 1528 1500 BROOKS Amos 50 m w gentleman NJ 1144 7 1528 1500 BROOKS R. W. 50 f w NJ 1144 8 1528 1500 BROOKS Emma E. 20 f w NJ 1144 9 1528 1500 BROOKS Anna 17 f w NJ 1144 10 1528 1500 BROOKS Walter 12 m w NJ 1144 11 1529 1501 GOALING James 45 m w gentleman NJ 1144 12 1529 1501 GOALING Margaret 24 f w NJ 1144 13 1529 1501 GOALING Martha A. 17 f w NJ 1144 14 1529 1501 GOALING Anna S. 15 f w NJ 1144 15 1529 1501 GOALING George 11 m w NJ 1144 16 1530 1502 SHERIDAN Michael 33 m w laborer Ireland 1144 17 1530 1502 SHERIDAN Ann 25 f w Ireland 1144 18 1530 1502 SHERIDAN John 5 m w NJ 1144 19 1530 1502 SHERIDAN Joseph 4 m w NJ 1144 20 1530 1502 SHERIDAN Frank 1 m w NJ 1144 21 1531 1503 WOODROW Thomas 83 m w gentleman NJ 1144 22 1531 1503 WOODROW Sarah 86 f w NJ 1144 23 1531 1503 WOODROW Jemima S. 60 f w NJ 1144 24 1532 1504 WILLITS Charles 36 m w tanner/currier NJ 1144 25 1532 1504 WILLITS Rachel A. 28 f w NJ 1144 26 1532 1504 WILLITS Mary J. 6 f w NJ 1144 27 1532 1504 WILLITS Henry B. 3 m w NJ 1144 28 1533 1505 BUCKNELL Samuel R. 40 m w farmer Pa 1144 29 1533 1505 BUCKNELL Lydia S. 42 f w NJ 1144 30 1533 1505 BUCKNELL Simeon E. 10 m w Pa 1144 31 1533 1505 BUCKNELL Samuel 7 m w NJ 1144 32 1534 1506 EVANS Ezra 60 m w farmer NJ 1144 33 1534 1506 EVANS Rebecca C. 82 f w NJ 1144 34 1534 1506 EVANS Mary A. 52 f w NJ 1144 35 1534 1506 MORTLAND Sarah 17 f w NJ 1144 36 1535 1507 GASKILL Moses 43 m w farm laborer NJ 1144 37 1535 1507 GASKILL Elizabeth 37 f w NJ 1144 38 1535 1507 GASKILL Ann E. 9 f w NJ 1144 39 1536 1508 BARKER E. M. 55 m w clergyman/Bap. NJ 1144 40 1536 1508 BARKER Sarah R. 51 f w NJ [email protected] "Dogs leave paw prints on our hearts."

The following material is verbatim from Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Early Settlers of New Jersey and their Descendants, by John E. Stillwell, M.D., Vol. IV, New York, 1916, p. 304 et seq. Patty Myers The Rev. Mr. Hart, of Hopewell, drawing his information from the descendants of Jonathan Stout, and supplying it to Morgan Edwards, gave a series of dates which are wrong upon their face and extremely confusing. He stated that Penelope, the wife of Richard Stout, was born in 1602, and sailed for New York about 1620, and was wrecked. That she met and married, in New York, Richard Stout, when she was in her twenty-second year, and he in his fortieth, and that she lived to the age of one hundred and ten years, and saw her offspring multiplied into five hundred and two in about eighty-eight years. Allowing one year for her widowhood, Penelope Stout would have married Richard Stout, according to these dates, in 1621, in her twenty-second year, which would make her born about 1600; and he, at this date, in his fortieth year, would have been born about 1582; she, living to one hundred and ten years of age, would have died about 1710. If Penelope Stout was born in 1602, she was sixty-three years old when the settlement of Middletown occurred, and as only two of her children, John and Richard, had arrived at age, and were presumably about twenty and eighteen years, respectively, she must have been aged forty-three years when she bore her first child, and as we know that she had ten children that grew to adult life, and perhaps others who died young, it would have prolonged her child-bearing period till she was near, if not over, the age of sixty, when, as a matter of fact, it should have encompassed thirty years, between the ages of sixteen years and forty-six years, or thereabouts. Evidently there is a mistake in Mr. Hart's dates, and I think it lies in the fact that he erroneously gave the date of birth, 1602, to Penelope Stout instead of to Richard Stout, her husband. If we accept this as likely, and fit her marriage to the date of 1644, which we have proved was the probable date of her arrival, then we! can intelligently apply the other figures, given by Mr. Hart, and the results would be: Richard Stout was born 1602; married 1644; died 1705. Penelope Stout was born 1622-3; married 1644; died 1732/3. The correctness of the dates assigned Richard Stout is sustained by the fact that he was very old in 1686, and that he became inactive, in town affairs, about 1670. We have little knowledge of him in his later days. 1679-80 Feb. 26. Richard and Penelope Stout sold to Thomas Snowsell, Sr., sixteen acres of land, with dwelling house, barn and orchard, and nine acres of upland, in the Poplar Field, and other small parcels, for £66.6.3. This land later passed to John Crafford and then to Peter Tilton. In 1690 he conveyed to his son, Peter Stout, land on Hop River, and six and two-thirds acres of meadow, at Conesconck, joining David Stout. In 1690 he conveyed to his son James Stout land on Hop River, on whose boundaries was Jonathan Stout, and another piece of land, at Conescunk, adjoining David Stout. 1703, June 9th. Will of Richard Stout, of Middletowne, County of Monmouth; proved, by attestation of Richard Hartshorne, one of the witnesses, and also to the signatures of witnesses, John Weekham, [Meekham?], and Peter Vandevandetere, before Edward, Vifcount [Viscount] Cornbury, Governor, Perth Amboy, ye 23th, 8ber, 1705, mentioned: "unto my louing wife deuring her naturall life All my orchard and that part or rome of the houfe fhee now lives in with the cellar and all the land I now Improue. . . . unto my louing wife all my horfe kind excepting one mare and coult my Sonn Beniamin is to haue for wintering my cattell laft yeare." "to my Sonns, John, Richard, James, Jonathan, Dauid, Beniamin, one fhilling each of them." "to my Daughters, Mary, Alce and Sarah, each of them, one fhilling." "to my daughter in law, Marey Stoute, and to her fonn, John, one fhilling each of them." "unto my kinswoman, Mary Stoute, and daughter formerly of peter ftouts, one Cow to be paid within fix days After my wifes death." Residue "of personall eftate. . . . unto my louing wife, and . . . I mak my fonn John and my fonn Jonathan my Exseceters to fee this my will performed." Witnesses: Richard Hartshorne, John Weekham [Meekham?] and Peter Vandevandeter. He signed with his mark. 1705, 8ber, 23th. Oath of executors, John and Jonathan Stout, before Edward, Vifcount Cornbury, Perth Amboy. Richard Stout, as has been deduced, probably married in 1643 or 1644, and had by his wife, Penelope, issue, most, if not all of whom, were born in Gravesend, Long Island. If no account is taken of any deceased children, or the exact order of succession, the dates of birth of the known children would be about as follows: John Stout, b. about 1644/5 Richard Stout, born about 1646. Mary Stout, b. about 1648. James Stout, born about 1650. Alice Stout, born about 1652. Peter Stout, born about 1654; died between 1702 and 1703. Sarah Stout, born about 1656. Jonathan Stout, born about 16__. 1646 says James Hervey Stout. Benjamin Stout, born about 1669? David Stout, born about 1667 or 1669.

The 1860 Census Burlington Co., being sent to us daily is a great source of information for us, and we want to thank MaisieAnn for posting it. Will someone please let us know if Burlington county & Monmouth county were the same in 1860? Pauline

BURLINGTON CO. NJ, 29 August 1860, PO Mt. Holly, Evesham Twp. p. 1143 1143 1 1515 1467 CALLON Bridget 28 f w Ireland 1143 2 1515 1467 CALLON Thomas 1 m w NJ 1143 3 1516 1468 BROOKS Aaron 51 m w farm laborer NJ 1143 4 1516 1468 BROOKS Lucy 52 f w NJ 1143 5 1517 1469 SHULL John R. 30 m w boot fitter Pa 1143 6 1517 1469 SHULL Sarah 28 f w Pa 1143 7 1517 1469 SHULL Anna M. 5 f w Pa 1143 8 1517 1469 SHULL John 3 m w Pa 1143 9 1517 1469 SHULL Sarah 8/12 f w Pa 1143 10 1518 1470 MYERS Thomas 60 m w coach maker NJ 1143 11 1518 1470 MYERS Martha 58 f w NJ 1143 12 1519 1471 BURNETT John 45 m w farmer/currier Maryland 1143 13 1519 1471 BURNETT Elizabeth 54 f w NJ 1143 14 1519 1471 BURNETT Samuel T. 16 m w NJ 1143 15 1519 1471 BURNETT Franklin 12 m w Pa 1143 16 1520 1492 REEVES Isaac 30 m w farm labor NJ 1143 17 1520 1492 REEVES Sarah 24 f w NJ 1143 18 1520 1492 REEVES Sarah C. 4 f w NJ 1143 19 1520 1492 REEVES Clara V. 1 f w NJ 1143 20 1521 1493 REEVES Sarah 50 f w NJ 1143 21 1521 1493 McCOY James 19 m w shoemaker NJ 1143 22 1522 1494 SHARPE Barzilla 52 m w carpenter NJ 1143 23 1522 1494 SHARPE Sarah 52 f w NJ 1143 24 1522 1494 SHARPE Lydia 20 f w NJ 1143 25 1522 1494 SHARPE Susan 18 f w NJ 1143 26 1523 1495 COLES Joseph L. 36 m w farmer NJ 1143 27 1523 1495 COLES Rebecca H. 31 f w NJ 1143 28 1523 1495 COLES Joseph L. 4 m w NJ 1143 29 1523 1495 COLES Laura B. 2 f w NJ 1143 30 1523 1495 TICE Eliza 10 f w NJ 1143 31 1523 1495 BRADDOCK Charles H. 14 m w NJ 1143 32 1524 1496 CLINE Jonathan L. 35 m w farm labor NJ 1143 33 1524 1496 CLINE Martha A. 24 f w NJ 1143 34 1524 1496 CLINE Lewis S. 3 m w NJ 1143 35 1524 1496 CLINE Emma 9/12 f w NJ 1143 36 1525 1497 BALLENGER Ann 52 f w gentlewoman NJ 1143 37 1525 1497 MASPOLE Rebecca 67 f w NJ 1143 38 1526 1498 JONES Charles M. 20 m w blacksmith NJ 1143 39 1526 1498 JONES Amanda 28 f w NJ 1143 40 1527 1499 WILKENS William 40 m w gentleman NJ [email protected] "Dogs leave paw prints on our hearts."

Patty, Thanks so much for taking your time to give us the valuable information on the Stout family. I appreciate also your clarifying the Anna Bollen name. Jonathan and Anna Bollen Stout were the parents of my ancestor Sarah Stout who married Andrew Smith. Their son Andrew was the father of Jemima Smith who married Benjamin Merrill. Benjamin helped found the Jersey Settlement in North Carolina and is famous in NC history for his part in the Battle of Alamance and subsequent execution by the British Governor Tryon. Their descendants eventually spread throughout the entire southeast. Brenda

BURLINGTON CO. NJ, 29 August 1860, PO Mt.Holly, Evesham Twp. p. 1142 1142 1 1507 1476 VALENTINE Alexander 27 m b waiter Del. 1142 2 1507 1476 VALENTINE Rebecca 24 f b NJ 1142 3 1507 1476 VALENTINE George W. 4 m b NJ 1142 4 1507 1476 VALENTINE David P. 1 m b NJ 1142 5 1508 1477 FIFER Thomas 28 m w farmer NJ 1142 6 1508 1477 FIFER Martha A. 25 f w NJ 1142 7 1508 1477 FIFER Rebecca W. 7 f w NJ 1142 8 1508 1477 FIFER Thomas R. 5 m w NJ 1142 9 1508 1477 FIFER George 2 m w NJ 1142 10 1509 1478 CHAVE John 50 m w musician NJ 1142 11 1509 1478 CHAVE Rebecca 26 f w Pa 1142 12 1509 1478 CHAVE Eliza 7/12 f w NJ 1142 13 1510 1479 HENRY John 55 m b laborer Del 1142 14 1480 PINKETT William 45 m b laborer unknown 1142 15 1480 PINKETT Jane 30 f b Pa. 1142 16 1511 1481 FITERS James 55 m b laborer NJ 1142 17 1511 1481 FITERS Harriet 50 f b NJ 1142 18 1512 1482 HOOSON Ernest 39 m w farmer Hanover 1142 19 1512 1482 HOOSON Elizabeth 28 f w Germany 1142 20 1512 1482 HOOSON Margaret 5 f w NJ 1142 21 1512 1482 HOOSON Lewis 3 m w NJ 1142 22 1512 1482 HOOSON Ernest 1 m w NJ 1142 23 1512 1482 VIGAL Jacob 14 m w Bavaria 1142 24 1513 1483 BAGARD John 43 m w laborer Bavaria 1142 25 1513 1483 BAGARD Elizabeth 32 f w Bavaria 1142 26 1513 1483 BAGARD Abigal 13 f w NJ 1142 27 1513 1483 BAGARD Samuel 11 m w NJ 1142 28 1513 1483 BAGARD Elizabeth 9 f w NJ 1142 29 1513 1483 BAGARD John 6 m w NJ 1142 30 1513 1483 BAGARD Catharine 4 f w NJ 1142 31 1513 1464 ALBRIGHT Samuel 48 m w laborer Pa. 1142 32 1513 1464 ALBRIGHT Josephine 22 f w NJ 1142 33 1513 1464 ALBRIGHT Emily 4 f w NJ 1142 34 1513 1464 ALBRIGHT Josephine 1 f w NJ 1142 35 1514 1465 COOP Deborah C. 73 f w gentlewoman NJ 1142 36 1466 HAMON George 28 m w laborer NJ 1142 37 1466 HAMON Elizabeth 29 f w NJ 1142 38 1466 HAMON Susan 4 f w NJ 1142 39 1466 HAMON Charles 1 m w NJ 1142 40 1515 1467 CALLON Peter 28 m w farm labor NJ [email protected] "Dogs leave paw prints on our hearts."

Hi! I would like to thank everyone who took the time to look up Jacob Johnsons in Middlesex county, I couldn't have gotten the information without your help. Also, thank you for the suggestions for other places to look, I do appreciate them. dottie

Group I found the story of Penelope a couple of years ago, published in one of the local papers. Even though, I am not a descendant, I took it upon myself to research the name and ancestors of our friend who is a Stout descendant. I told him about one forum that I get thru rootsweb ([email protected]) that there is a heavy volume on the Stouts right now and if he wanted some information, now was the time. Next thing I know, we have his Family Bible. Even though the Stout name is English there is much to do with the history of New Netherlands and our Monmouth County where all the rich history, legends and early settlers started. I could hear this story hundreds of times and still learn something new. The DC site was trying to explore the ship's wreck with others so feel free to discuss on this site. The other online site for Cornell University, The Making of America is: http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/ which includes more of Monmouth Co. names and History. Just remember that the DC site is for Dutch so I am taking it from others that were in the (English) Stout discussions, it was permitted to discuss English as long as Dutch was in the discussion. They also have Archives on the bottom. Genie Giberson

The following material is a continuation of my previous information and is verbatim from Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Early Settlers of New Jersey and their Descendants by John E. Stillwell, M.D., Vol. IV< New York, 1916, p. 300 et seq. Patty Myers About March, 1644, the Indians were vanquished, and on Apr. 6, and Apr. 16, 1644, Sachems from various tribes concluded a new peace at Fort Amsterdam. It was in one of these two enlistments that Richard Stout served with Robert Pennoyer and other fellow soldiers, and I am inclined to think it was in the first one. At that time, Lady Moody and her party had not arrived and he [Richard Stout] was naturally free, but during the second enlistment, Gravesend having been settled and he, doubtless, one of its inhabitants, it was naturally incumbent upon him to remain with its defensive company. The supposition that Richard Stout was employed at the Fort in the Spring uprising of 1643, rather than in the Fall and Winter of 1643 and 1644, and that he left New Amsterdam, with Lady Moody, in the Summer of 1643, to found Gravesend, is confirmed by the following record from the Calendar of New York Historical Manuscripts, which establishes a date for his residence at Gravesend: "Octoberr 13th, 1643, Richard Aestin, Ambrose Love[?] and Richard Stout made declarations that the crew of the Seven Stars and of the privateer landed at the farm of Anthony Jansen, of Salee, in the Bay, and took off 200 pumpkins, and would have carried away a lot of hogs from Coney Island had they not learned that they belonged to Lady Moody." Thus far we have ascertained that Richard Stout was a resident of New Amsterdam in the Spring of 1643, when he was employed by Governor Kieft as a soldier in the February uprising of that year; that he accompanied Lady Moody, with other settlers, to found Gravesend, between her arrival in June, and October of this same year. How much earlier than February, 1643, Richard Stout may have been in New Amsterdam, it is idle to speculate upon. In the first allotments of house lots and farms in Gravesend, Feb. 20, 1646, he received Plantation lot No. 16, upon which he evidently grew tobacco, for Oct. 26, 1649, John Thomas bought, for two hundred and ten guilders, Richard Stout's crop of Tobacco. Gravesend Town Records In 1657, of his twenty acre farm he had seventeen acres under cultivation. 1661, Apr. 5. He bought an adjoining farm of Edward Griffin. 1663, Oct. 8. Richard Stout was plaintiff in a slander suit in Gravesend, and won his case. Even with his double farm of forty acres, Richard Stout realized its insufficiency to maintain and settle a rapidly growing family, so that he, with other neighbors, similarly situated, turned to the adjacent and easily reached country, whose wooded hills could be seen towards the South, which was the spot where his wife had had her bitter experience among the Indians, and of whose attractions she had doubtless spoken, prompting him to scout its woods in search of game, and finally in search of land for a new home for himself and family. That this settlement occurred before 1664, I doubt, though the Stout manuscript, and Mrs. Seabrook, probably from the same source, say explicitly, that it was in the year 1648, and that Stout was associated with five additional settlers, among whom Mrs. Seabrook named Bowne, Lawrence, Grover and Whitlock. To this earlier settlement, Edwards makes no allusion, nor can it be said that Smith does, but to the contrary, he fixes the date of Stout! 's settlement practically about the time of 1665, or a little later, for he mentions the event, as does Edwards, of an uprising when Penelope's old time Indian friend saved her by a timely warning, which Smith says occurred, when there "were supposed to be about fifty families of white people, and five hundred Indians inhabiting these parts." Surely this must relate to a later date than 1648, for so many white families could only have been assembled in this district after the Monmouth Patent had been issued by Governor Nicolls; further, a study of the movements of the Stouts, Bownes, Lawrences, Grovers and Whitlocks does not encourage the belief that they were permanently settled on the Monmouth Tract much before 1665. At times members of these families may have been temporarily camped out in this district for hunting or prospecting, and it may have been on one of these occasions that Penelope Stout received the warning from her Indian friend of the threatened uprising, and ! the need of her immediate removal, and, indeed, this event, given by Smith, Edwards and the Stout manuscript, could only have occurred during such a temporary occupation, for, in 1665, or later, Penelope's Indian saviour would have been more than twenty-two years older than he was in 1643, the date of Penelope's supposed arrival, when he was already an old man. Add these years to this old man's age and he would have been pretty patriarchal. Again, Smith's account says Penelope took her children with her, which would probably refer to a late, rather than to an early event, as in 1665, her family was largely grown, yet some were young, being born after 1654. Another statement in Smith's account contradicts the idea of a 1648 settlement, for he states that, "A while after marrying to one Stout, they lived together at Middletown among other Dutch inhabitants." As a matter of fact, the accredited associates of Stout, in his 1648 settlement, were English from Gravesend, and there is no knowledge of any Dutch in this locality till long after the Monmouth Patent was granted. When the conclusion was reached that it was vital to abandon the crowded settlement of Gravesend, a number of the settlers from that village, and a few from adjacent towns, to the number of twenty, sailed in a sloop, in the early part of December, 1663, up the Raritan River, and began negotiations with the Sachems for the purchase of lands. These proceedings were interrupted by a company of Dutchmen, who, cruising about in one of the company's sloops, heard of the presence of the English, and suspecting their purpose, notified the Sachems, of the Raritans and the Navesinks, not to bargain with them, whereupon the English went to the shores at the mouth of the Navesink, where, again, for a second time, a sharp passage at words occurred between them. The Dutch, for some time, had realized the desire of the English to throw over their allegiance, and were alert to impress them with the need of fealty, so that no progress was apparently made by the English settlers in their nego! tiations for lands, at this time. It was, probably, however, in anticipation of the expected overthrow of the Dutch, that this expedition was undertaken, and the consummation of this event, in the year following, 1664, with the proclamation of Governor Stuyvesant's successor, Richard Nicolls, of certain concessions, promptly brought about organized effort to locate in the territory which they had so recently prospected. Among those who moved to avail themselves of this golden opportunity, was Richard Stout, who, with others, patentees and associates, bought the Sachem's rights to the land embraced in the future Monmouth Patent, Apr. 8, 1665, which was confirmed to twelve of them, of whom he was one. When ready to remove to this new tract, Richard Stout disposed of his Gravesend property to Mr. Thomas Delaval, a prosperous merchant of New York, who seems to have meditated making his residence at Gravesend, and perhaps actually did so, as he is named as a Patentee in at least one of the patents of the town. . . . The date of Richard Stout's arrival, and permanent settlement on the Monmouth Tract, was 1664, as established by his claims for lands under the Grants and Concessions. . . . . 1675. Here begins the Rights of Lands due, according to Concessions. Richard Stout brings for his rights, for the year 1665, for his wife, two sons, John and Richard, 120 acres each; total 480 acres. Items for his sons and daughters yt are come voyge [of age?] since the year 1667, namely, James, Peter, Mary, Alice and Sarah, each 60 acres; total 300 acres. John Stout, of Middletown, for himself and wife..... 240 acres James Stout for his owne right 60 acres. Peter Stout for his owne right 60 acres. Sarah Stout for her owne right 60 acres. James Bowne, in right of his wife, Mary Stout, 240 acres. John Throckmorton, in right of his wife, Alice Stout, 240 acres Lib. 3, East Jersey Deeds, A. side, p. 1. ___________________________________ I guess this is enough on Stouts. I would like to add that there is some misinformation on the net about the Bollen family that married into Stout. Unfortunately people copy from other people and nobody seems to check out the material to see if it's correct. And misinformation gets passed around very quickly. Over and over again I have found on the net the erroneous statement that Jonathan-2 Stout (Richard-1) married Ann Throckmorton Bollen. Her name was Ann or Anna Bollen. She did not have a middle name of Throckmorton. I believe this error comes about because Alice-2 Stout (Richard-1) married John Throckmorton. Unthinking researchers, who believe that finding their ancestors is a matter of clicking a mouse and nothing more, make a lot of mistakes! Peter Stout m. a sister of Ann(a) Bollen. Her name has been given as Mary, but I have not found anything to substantiate this. Stillwell says Peter Stout m. a Miss Bullen. The second wife of Peter Stout was Mary Bowne. Perhaps people put Miss Bullen and Mary Bowne together and came up with Mary Bollen. Capt. James-1 Bollen, Secretary of the Province of East Jersey under Gov. Philip Carteret, married Ann(e) ____. Her name has been given as Vauquellin, daughter of Robert Vauquellin, Surveyor General of East Jersey. This marriage started with Orra Eugene Monette in his First Settlers of Piscataway and Woodbridge. He said: "There is evidence that the wife, Anne of James Bollen, was a daughter of Robert Vanquellen [sic] of Woodbridge; to whose will in 1673, James Bollen appeared as a witness." He produced no evidence. This statement shows that James Bollen was a witness to Vauquellin's will, nothing more. Being a witness to somebody's will does not necessarily imply that the witness was related to the testator. Probably because this was in print, it was repeated by others, and thus began the spreading of Monette's so-called evidence. This marriage has been in the literature since the 1930s. It's difficult to correct a statement that's been around so long. Robert Vauquellin made! his will in 1673 and he made it in a hurry because he knew he was going to be arrested. He was a member of Gov. Philip Carteret's despised contingent -- despised by the people he governed. When Vauquellin appeared before the court because he took Carteret's papers for safekeeping (when the Dutch retook New York) and refused to give them up, he was not the least bit humble. To the contrary he was arrogant and haughty and he was so overbearing and insolent that he practically thumbed his nose at the court when he boasted that the English would be back. Vauquellin was found guilty not only of proud and contemptuous disdain for authority, but of insurrection against the lawful government and was condemned "to be banished as an example to others." Vauquellin, a Frenchman, did not find the puritanic townsmen with whom he was compelled to associate, congenial company, and probably had no friends outside of the Carteret Council. His will was witnessed by James Bollen and Samuel Mo! ore, both members of Carteret's Council. They were neighbors and easy to find in a hurry, and probably were just about the only people who would be willing to witness his will. I mention this because Capt. James Bollen and wife Ann(e) were grandparents of some of the Stouts. Monette's work is so terribly flawed that genealogists past and present rue the day he ever published. His work should not be taken with just a grain of salt, but with the whole shaker. There's a list on the net of fraudulent genealogists -- Gustav Anjou is one of the worst. Monette is on this list too.

The following material is from Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Early Settlers of New Jersey and their Descendants, by John E. Stillwell, M.D., Vol. IV, New York, 1916, p. 298 et seq. Patty Myers "Richard Stout, the first of the name in America, was born in Nottinghamshire, England; and his father's name was John. The said Richard when quite a young man paid his addresses to a young woman that his father thought was below his rank, upon which account some unpleasant conversation happened between the father and son, upon account of which the said Richard left his father's house and in a few days engaged on board a ship of war, where he served about seven years, at which time he got his discharge at New Amsterdam, now called New York. About the same time a ship from Amsterdam in Holland, on her way to the said New Amsterdam was drove on the shore that is now called Middletown in Monmouth County in the state of New Jersey, which ship was loaded with passengers who, with much difficulty got on shore. But the Indians not long after fell upon them and butchered and killed the whole crew as they thought, but soon after the Indians were gone a certain Penelope Van Prince, wh! ose husband the Indians had killed, she found herself possessed with strength enough to creep in a hollow tree, where she remained some days with a number of severe wounds in her head and back. An Indian happening to come that way whose dog barking at the tree occasioned him to examine the inside of the tree, where he found the said Penelope in this forlorn and distressing condition which moved his compassion. He took her out of the tree and carried her to his residence, where he treated her kindly and healed her wounds, and in a short time conveyed her in his canoe to New Amsterdam where he sold her to the Dutch who then owned that city. The man and the woman from whom the whole race of Stouts have descended are now in the city of New Amsterdam where they became acquainted with each other and were married and notwithstanding it may be thought by some they conducted [themselves] with more fortitude than prudence, they immediately crossed the bay and settled in the aforesaid ! Middletown where Penelope had lost her first husband by the Indians and had been so severely wounded herself. There was at this time but six white families in the settlement, including their own which was in the year 1648. Here they continued until they became rich in property and rich in children." >From the manuscript written, in 1825, by Capt. Nathan Stout, and corrected by Joseph D. Hoff, of Middletown, N.J., in August, 1885. This manuscript contained many errors.* *The original is now owned by Mr. J. Hervey Stout, of Stoutsburg, whose father had it printed in a small edition, by the Hopewell Herald, to save it from destruction. Copies of the book are now scarce. _______________________________________ Setting aside, temporarily, his traditional history, we now come to Richard Stout's known history. This starts about 1643, when, in June of that year, Lady Deborah Moody, accompanied by her son, Sir Henry Moody, and a number of English families of good condition, arrived at the fort, at New Amsterdam, fresh from religious persecutions in New England, to seek and found an asylum under the Dutch. They were hospitably received and permitted to select such lands as they wished. At the date of their arrival, Richard Stout was probably among the English settlers, who, prior to that time, had located among the Dutch upon Manhattan Island, attracted thither from the religious intolerance of New England, or for purposes of trade, or in the spirit of adventure. These English speaking bodies soon joined to found the new settlement of Gravesend, upon Long Island, whither they probably at once commenced to remove. By 1645, with some intervening vicissitudes, they were well organized and ! the Director General, Kieft, issued them a patent dated Dec. 19th, of that year. Among the thirty-nine patentees enumerated was Richard Stout. An entry in the Town Book of the new settlement throws some light upon the life and times of Richard Stout. Unfortunately it is incomplete: May 7, 1647. "Richard Stoute being sworn deposeth yt in the . . . . his being a soldiere at the ffort with Penneare and other his fellow soldieres," etc. Twice, in 1643, the English were employed as soldiers by the Dutch. The unparalleled stupidity and barbarity of the Dutch Director-General, Kieft, and certain of his followers, jeopardized the very existence of the Dutch settlements, by embroiling them with the Indians. About the first of February, 1643, the warlike Mohawks descended upon the tribes inhabiting the shores of the lower Hudson, to enforce the tribute of dried clams and wampum which had been withheld at the instigation of some of the Long Island Indians. Fleeing like sheep before wolves, consumed with cold, hunger and fright, some four or five hundred fugitives sought the protection of the whites upon Manhattan Island, where, under the walls of the fort, these pitiable objects were fed and sheltered by the hospitable settlers for a fortnight. Recovering confidence, they broke up into two parties, one of which ventured across the river to Pavonia, on the way to their friends, the Hackensacks, while the other removed to the vicinity of Corlear's Hook, where a number of Rockaway Indians had lately set up their wigwams. At this juncture, the Director, when heated with wine, yielded to the appeals of his Secretary to revenge a murder committed, some time previously, at Hackensack, and the failure of the Westchester Indians to surrender the murderer of one of the settlers, Claes Schmidt, likewise an affair many months old. Volunteers and soldiers thereupon were led to the two Indian encampments, where, under cover of darkness, they fell upon the trusting savages and foully murdered eighty in one place and forty in the other, sparing neither infants, women nor the decrepid. Never was there fouler butchery. When they realized that it was not the Indians of Fort Orange, but the Dutch who had attacked them at Pavonia and Corlear's Hook, they joined the Long Island tribes, who had recently been plundered of their corn by Dutch farmers, made bold by recent events, and who had killed two of the savages while defending their property. These two factions now made an alliance with the River Indians, an! d eleven tribes, numbering two thousand warriors, burning to avenge the massacre of their people, rose in open war and every white man upon whom they could lay hands was killed. They laid waste the whole country from the Raritan River to the banks of the Connecticut. The fort became the sole refuge of the panic stricken inhabitants, who, huddled together, bewailed their utter ruin through the folly and criminality of Kieft, and they now threatened to abandon the colony in a body. In this emergency, the Director General saw no resource to prevent a depopulation of New Amsterdam, but to take all the settlers into the service of the Company, for two months, until peace could be reestablished, "as he had not sufficient soldiers for public defense." Life and Times of Nicholas Stillwell, p. 86. This uprising was of short duration, for the savages, who had glutted their revenge, felt the need of planting their maize, and made overtures of peace, which were eagerly accepted by Kieft, and a treaty was concluded, first, with the Long Island Indians, on Mch. 25, 1643, and with the River Indians on Apr. 22, 1643. The second uprising, in 1643, occurred some months later, and again was the result of Kieft's maladministration. Notwithstanding the fearful experience he had just passed through, his cupidity and dishonesty were such that he embezzled the gifts that were to ratify the late treaty with the River Indians, which occasioned such dissatisfaction and discontent that the outraged Indians seized several boats laden with peltries in retaliation and as an offset. In doing this, ten white men were killed. Then followed war in its most terrible shape. The settlements of Anne Hutchinson, John Throckmorton and the Rev. Francis Doughty were all destroyed, some of their settlers killed or taken into captivity, while the balance, amounting to over an hundred families, quickly made their way to the Fort at New Amsterdam. Lady Moody's settlement, at Gravesend, alone was able to withstand their assault. Here, the townsmen, many of whom had served during the two months in the Indian outbreak in! the Spring, under Lieut. Nicholas Stillwell, Ensign George Baxter and Sergeant James Hubbard, well organized into a trained band, gave them so brisk and severe a reception that they were soon in full retreat. So great was the need of protection at the Fort that Kieft again found it necessary to take "into the public service all the able bodied English inhabitants of the neighboring villages, the Commonalty of New Amsterdam having agreed to provide for one-third of their pay; and a company of fifty was immediately enrolled from their number, armed and drilled." About March, 1644, the Indians were vanquished, and on Apr. 6, and Apr. 16, 1644, Sachems from various tribes concluded a new peace at Fort Amsterdam. It was in one of these two enlistments that Richard Stout served with Robert Pennoyer and other fellow soldiers, and I am inclined to think it was in the first one. More to come---

Here's some more of what I've gathered: Register of the Early Settlers of Kings County, Long Island, New York, p. 286-7: ". . . one of the first settlers of [Gravesend] in 1643 and allotted plantation-lot No. 18 in 1646, as per town rec'd. about 1688. He also bought Apl. 5, 1661, plantation-lot No. 26 of Edward Griffen. With a number of his neighbors he left [Gravesend] and settled at Middletown, Monmouth Co., N.J., of which place he was one of the patentees or original purchasers of the Indians, as per p. 73 of Vol. I of Raum's N.J. There is a story, founded on tradition, on p. 76, etc., of said Vol. of the shipwreck of a Dutch ship on Sandy Hook; of the crew and passengers leaving a sick young Dutchman and his wife there while they went for relief; of the Indians tomahawking the man, mangling the wife and leaving her for dead; of her recovering and crawling into a hollow log and subsisting for several days on berries, and then being discovered and taken prisoner and her life preserved by an old Indian, ransomed by the Dutch of N.Y., where she married Richard Stout, being at the time in her 22d year and he in his 40th. They settled at Middletown, where the old Indian often visited her, and on one occasion, by informing her of a plot to massacre the whites, put them on their guard and saved the settlement from destruction. This woman, whose maiden name was Penelope Van Prince, lived to the age of 110 years, her posterity numbering 502 at the time of her death. The compiler gives this tradition as he finds it, having little faith therein. Issue (per Rev. G.C. Schenck):--John; Richard; Jonathan; Peter; James; Benjamin; David; Deliverance; Sarah; and Penelope, whose descendants are numerous in N.J. Made his mark to documents." 8 April 1665 -- "Captain John Bowne and his associates had anticipated the British occupation of New Netherlands, and negotiated with the Indians for lands -- made the beginnings of a settlement near Middletown. Now they proceeded to obtain from the Royal Governor, Colonel Richard Nicholls, confirmation and sanction of their purchases. On their petition, Letters Patent were issued 8 April 1665 by Governor Nicholls granting these lands and his authority to the twelve men ever after to be know as the Patentees of Monmouth: William Goulding (Golden), Samuel Spicer, Richard Gibbons, Richard Stout, James Grover, John Bowne, John Tilton, Nathaniel Sylvester, William Reape, Walter Clark, Nichols Dais and Obediah Holmes. The Patentees and their associates were bound to settle on the lands granted them, within three years of the date of the Patent at least one hundred families." Monmouth County Historical Society (Woolman & Rose) 1665-1670 -- "The Men Who Came to Monmouth": From the limitations and conditions contained in the Monmouth Patent and for other reasons, the period from 1665-1670 may be considered as marking the first wave of early settlement and the settlers ... being the Founders of Monmouth. These were: [The twelve Patentees]. Monmouth County Historical Society, Monmouth Patent Granted, taken from This Old Monmouth of Ours, by William Homer, Originally Published by Moreau Brothers of Freehold, NJ, 1932.

The following material is verbatim from Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Early Settlers of New Jersey and their Descendants, by John E. Stillwell, M.D., Vol. IV, New York, 1916, p. 297 et seq. Patty Myers We may pass Bergen (Early Settlers of King's County, pp. 286-287), who quotes Raum and cavils at the accuracy of the tradition, and Franklin Ellis, (History of Monmouth County, N.J., pp. 66-68), who follows Smith and Edwards, and, while properly taking exception to palpable errors in dates, is in error himself when he criticises the Indian attitude, which, at times, was intensely hostile. With Salter and Stockton following Smith and Edwards, we may now close the list. These printed histories are reinforced by manuscript histories and oral traditions. Of these, a manuscript history of the Stouts was made, in 1823, by Nathan Stout. It was from a copy of this work, made by Mr. Joseph D. Hoff, of Middletown, N.J., in 1885, that I made a copy in 1892, which so far as the genealogy goes, is incorporated, as far as possible, in corrected shape, in the following contributions to the Stout family history. The narrative concerning Penelope Stout, which was the introduction to this man! uscript family history, is produced in its original language further on, and is practically the same as those that have appeared in print. Of the oral traditions, those derived from the late Mrs. Henry Seabrook, of Keyport, nee Therese Walling, are, doubtless, the most accurate, original and entertaining. Mrs. Seabrook was an intellectually gifted woman, steeped in local genealogical lore, derived from her great ancestors. Upon their laps she sat when young, or with the assembled elders at the nearby hearthside, to be entertained by their constant repetitions of tales of exposure, hardship, love and war. The old are garrulous, live in the past, delight in the young, and with contracted lives and thought they become the local historians of the past to young but willing ears, upon whose excited imagination the stories remain indelibly impressed. Thus it was that Mrs. Seabrook passed onward the tales of her childhood. Perhaps the most important of these was the following: "My grandmother, Helena Huff, told me how her grandfather, John Stout, had felt the wounds of Penelope Stout, and that he blushed like a school boy. She wished the knowledge of the Indian assault transmitted to her posterity and it has been done, for there are but two hands between Penelope and me." "Richard Stout having passed seven years on a man of war schooner, which he had entered when he forsook his father's house, after the failure of his first love speculation, married Penelope Van Prince. After a time the little Dutch woman prevailed in inducing her husband to consent to come to the future site of Middletown to settle. They were accompanied by four families, tradition states, by the name of Bowne, Lawrence, Grover and Whitlock about the year 1648. The Stouts were in Middletown and Pleasant Valley; the Bownes from Chigarora Creek west and north, owning what is now Union, East and West Keyport, Brown's Point, Cliffwood, etc. The Lawrence family settled at Colt's Neck, and extended north probably to Holmdel, but generally going further south, where they swarmed. The Whitlocks settled at the Bay Shore near the site of the present Port Monmouth, and later between Middletown and Holmdel." "There was the best of understanding between Penelope Stout and her Indian 'father' as she called him, although all was not rose color between the settlers and Indians. A great-great-grand-daughter of hers used to relate to us grandchildren of her own, the following incident. Once the Indian father refused to eat with the family which he was always in the habit of doing when coming to see them, and Mrs. Stout followed him when he left the house and learned from him that his people had made arrangements to surprise and murder all the whites on the following night. She lost no time in gathering the white people together, and they made their way to the Bay Shore, and entering their canoes, lay all night in them off shore, it being too dark to go to any place across the water. The next day peace was made with them. Later in their history, the whites of Middletown and vicinity were several weeks in a Block house which stood on the ground now occupied by the Baptist Church of that! village. In the Block house or fort, were born twin great-grand-daughters of Penelope, one of whom was immediately named Hope Still, after a treaty of peace with the besiegers, the other was called Deliverance, the first name is still in the family, the last, we think was not repeated, owing perhaps to her dying unmarried, as our ancestors were sure to name the first children for their parents. There has never failed a Richard among the Hartshornes, a Richard and John among the Stouts -- a Thomas, Joe or John among Wallings, -- a Hendrick in the Hendrickson and Longstreet families -- or a Wilhemus in Covenhoven." MRS. T. W. SEABROOK. More to come---

----- Original Message ----- From: "Debbi Geer" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 3:59 AM Subject: [PERRY] Re: New Jersey Turnpike Project and Cemetery Problem > The State of New Jersey is trying to complete a > turnpike project. In doing so the future of a > cemetery is at stake. A descendant of one of the 3500 > or even possibly 9000 burials in the cemetery has been > fighting the various levels of government in order to > save the cemetery. It is my understanding that the > those involved with the project were going to remove > any remains and bury all in one great big mass grave > and not make any attempt to notify the > descendants/relatives. There is a website which has > numerous articles and other information. Your support > is needed. There are two ways to speak up and have > your voice heard: 1) download a printable petition > and obtain signatures, or 2) sign an online petition. > I hope that those who have ancestors in the State of > New Jersey will support the effort in saving this > cemetery. If you don't have ancestors or relatives in > New Jersey, then consider the fact that it could > happen to a cemetery where your ancestors are buried. > The website address is - > > www.graveinfo.com > > > When I first heard about this a couple of months ago, > I was appalled and emailed a couple of letters. I > didn't think I would make a difference having no > connections to New Jersey, but evidently it helped in > some way. So if one can help do something, just think > what thousands can do as a group. If you are are > other mail lists, please pass this information on. > The more signatures, the better chance that the > officials in New Jersey as well as all other states > will see that we care about our ancestors and respect > their burial locations. Thank you for your support. > > > Debbi Geer > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > > ==== PERRY Mailing List ==== > contact listowner: [email protected] > Unsub: [email protected] > unsub digest [email protected] > www.rootsweb.com > archives: http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl > threaded archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/ > >

Once upon a time I thought I was descended from Penelope (Lent/Kent-VanPrinces) Stout, via her daughter Mary Stout who m. James-Bowne. But that didn't ever materialize. However, I did collect a lot of material on Stout, and will copy it for those interested. This will have to come in a couple of installments as it's quite long. There's a lot of material here that you'll probably disregard, but I'm including it any way for those of you who want the whole story and want to check out the references that are cited. Patty Myers The following material is verbatim from Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Early Settlers of New Jersey and their Descendants, by John E. Stillwell, M.D., Vol. IV, New York, 1916, p. 295 et seq. 1. RICHARD STOUT, an early settler in this country and the founder of the large family bearing his name, was reputed the son of John Stout, of Nottinghamshire, England. Tradition has it that he left England because of friction with his father, who interfered with his love affairs, which drove him to engage on a man-of-war for seven years, at the end of which time he received his discharge at New Amsterdam [New York]. The tradition may be truthful, but if the printed statement is correct that he was forty years of age when he married Penelope Van Princis, after allowing seven years for ship service and three additional years between his discharge and marriage, he would still have been about thirty years old when this rupture occurred, an age when parental intrusion and discipline in love affairs is hardly likely, but if so, might have been resented in the manner accredited to him. The assertion that Richard Stout was of "good family," which implies social caste, and that the ! cause of the disturbance between father and son was a threatened misalliance also may be true, but we have no proof of the social position of John Stout, and as an argument against it there is the fact that Richard Stout, his son, was not an educated man, when education was common. The answer to this is the presumption that Richard Stout was probably a headstrong character, not likely to be coerced into scholarly attainments. These statements, and more, are set forth in certain published articles concerning the Stout family, in which Penelope, the wife of Richard, is a conspicuous figure. The first of these to appear was the account printed in Samuel Smith's History of New Jersey, published at Burlington, N.J., in 1765. A second version appeared in print in Morgan Edwards' Materials Towards A History Of The Baptists in Jersey," published in 1792. These two versions have much in common, but are still so dissimilar that it is evident that their sources or origin were totally d! ifferent. Edwards projected A History of the American Baptists, in a series of twelve state Baptist church histories. The first of these was published in 1770, on Pennsylvania. Then came a long gap, doubtless largely occasioned by the War, and then appeared, in 1792, the volume on New Jersey. None followed, as it was a losing venture to the author, though the price was put at one-fourth of one dollar each and the issue limited to five hundred copies. His complaint about neglect was well founded, when the modest charge and the labor were considered, but he had entered a field, then as now, unappreciated except by the few historical and genealogical students. While his second volume was published in 1792, the preface shows that the work was finished by the writer May 1, 1790, and no doubt its compilation took some years. Exactly how long can only be surmised, but as the article on the Stouts, (under the church at Hopewell), was contributed by the Rev. Oliver Hart to Mr. Edward! s, and as his incumbency as pastor of the Hopewell church dates from Dec. 16, 1780, it could not have antedated this year 1780, but probably was written between 1785 and 1789. It is from these two sources that later historians, writers and genealogists largely derive their information. Benedict, in his History of the Baptists, edition of 1813 (Vol. I, pp. 573-574), draws entirely from Morgan Edwards, as does Barber's Historical Collections of New Jersey, edition of 1868, pp. 259-260. Raum too, in his History of Trenton, N.J., 1871, pp. 58-59, follows the Edwards text, but misleads in stating that he gives the narrative verbatim. This he does not do, for a superficial comparison shows an embellished text, which, with the erroneous statement that the book was published in 1790, when it was really printed in 1792, leads one to seek another publication when one does not really exist. The Smith and Edwards publications are reproduced here verbatim, being necessary for a proper appreciation of the dates involved. That the tradition concerning Penelope Stout's experience with the Indians is true is, to my mind, as certain as that man now exists. Her hardiness to have outlived, for eighty-four years, her mutilation at the hands of the Indians, her extraordinary longevity reaching one hundred and ten years, and her enormous progeny, would tend to make her a much-talked-of individual, and Smith, who wrote concerning her, less than thirty-three years after her death, must have met many who knew her in life, and Edwards was not far behind him in chronicling the same tale from other sources. Then, we have the remarkable verification of her scars by her descendants, as given by Mrs. Seabrook. Surely there is no room for doubt, and though some seemingly fanciful accretions may have accumulated around the story in time, they are more likely to be facts with misplace! d dates, such as the episode of the Indian aiding her except in the threatened uprising, rather than actual errors. CASE OF A STRANGER, REMARKABLY SAVED AMONG THE INDIANS [NOTE: In the original an "s" was written as "f", but I have written "s" as "s" to make the reading a bit easier] While New York was in possession of the Dutch, about the time of the Indian war in New-England, a Dutch ship coming from Amsterdam, was stranded on Sandy Hook,(1) but the passengers got on shore; among them was a young Dutchman who had been sick most of the voyage; he was taken so bad after landing, that he could not travel; and the other passengers being afraid of the Indians, would not stay till he recovered, but made what haste they could to New Amsterdam; his wife however would not leave him, the rest promised to send as soon as they arrived: They had not been long gone, before a company of Indians coming down to the water side, discovered them on the beach, and hastening to the spot, soon killed the man, and cut and mangled the woman in such a manner that they left her for dead. She had strength enough to crawl up to some old logs not far distant, and getting into a hollow one, lived mostly in it for several days, subsisting in part by the excrescences that grew from it! ; the Indians had left some fire on the shore, which she kept together for warmth: having remained in this manner for some time, an old Indian and a young one coming down to the beach found her; they were soon in high words, which she afterwards understood was a dispute; the former being for keeping her alive, the other for dispatching: After they had debated the point a while, the first hastily took her up, and tossing her upon his shoulder, carried her to a place near where Middletown now stands, where he dressed her wounds and soon cured her: After some time the Dutch in New-Amsterdam hearing of a white woman among the Indians, concluded who it must be and some of them came to her relief; the old man her preserver, gave her the choice either to go or stay; she chose the first: A while after marrying to one Stout, they lived together at Middletown among other Dutch inhabitants; the old Indian who saved her life, used frequently to visit her; at one of his visits she observ! ed him to be more pensive than common, and sitting down he gave three heavy sighs; after the last she thought herself at liberty to ask him what was the matter? He told her he had something to tell her in friendship, tho' at the risk of his own life, which was, that the Indians were that night to kill all the whites, and advised her to go off for New-Amsterdam; she asked him how she could get off? he told her he had provided a canoe at a place which he named: Being gone from her, she sent for her husband out of the field, and discovered the matter to him, who not believing it, she told him the old man never deceived her, and that she with her children would go; accordingly going to the place appointed, they found the canoe and paddled off. When they were gone, the husband began to consider the thing, and sending for five or six of his neighbours, they set upon their guard: About midnight they heard the dismal war-hoop; presently came up a company of Indians; they first expos! tulated, and then told them, if they persisted in their bloody design, they would sell their lives very dear: Their arguments prevailed, the Indians desisted, and entered into a league of peace, which was kept without violation. From this woman, thus remarkably saved, with her scars visible, through a long life, is descended a numerous posterity of the name of Stout, now inhabiting New-Jersey: At that time there were supposed to be about fifty families of white people, and five hundred Indians inhabiting those parts. (1)Other accounts say in Delaware, nigh Christeen, but this is most likely to be true. History of New Jersey, Samuel Smith, Burlington, 1765: pp. 65 et al. More to come-----

Hi Genie: Could you please tell us how to reach the Dutch Colonies site? Bill Barton [email protected] ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com

I am descended from Penelope and Richard Stout through their sons Jonathan and James. I would love to know the answers to Genie's questions, too. It would be a tremendous help to all of us who are interested in this family if the replies were posted on this list. Genie, what is the address for the Dutch Colonies site? I would love to see what the discussions have been about. Many thanks from down here in Georgia! Brenda Roberts Shelton >______________________________X-Message: #5 >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:37:38 EST >From: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Subject: [NJMON] The Legend of Penelope & Richard Stout/Family >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > >Hello everyone. For the past week on the Dutch Colonies site at rootsweb, >there has been discussions on Penelope and Richard Stout. The story about >Penelope was printed in one of our local newspapers in the summer of? Can >anyone help me with which paper it was in and was it 2000 or 2001? May have >been the Ocean County Observer or Asbury Park Press. I even had the article >but can not find it now. > >Would anyone have the date of the shipwreck which she was on? The DC site is >saying 1642 which wrecked on Sandy Hook? > >I am helping a Stout family trace their ancestors from Old Bridge & Asbury >Park. Some names and dates from family bible included: Herbert Stout. Martha >(or could be Mearttia or Marttia SMITH )Stout & JE Stout. Married Aug. 27, >1885. George J. Elixx__ Stout, son of Martha & JE Stout; born March 8, 1891. >Old Bridge. > >Another date: Married Aug. 1, 1908 to Amanda Edgar. > >Elmer Stout, son of Amanda & Herbert Stout. Born May 29, 1910. >Nellie Stout - daughter of Amanda & Herbert. Born Oct. 6, 1911. >Herbert Stoddard Stout, son of Amanda & Herbert. Born Nov. 3, 1917. > >Herbert Stout, Sr. died Jan. 5, 1955 in Asbury Park. > >Clarence Augusta Stout son of Amanda and Herbert. Born Oct. 17, 1920. Died >Oct. 19, 1976. > >Elmer LeRoy Stout, Sr. died Aug. 11, 1965 > >Nellie M. Johnson (Stout) died Dec. 3, 1967 > >Thank You. > >Genie Giberson >

Hello everyone. For the past week on the Dutch Colonies site at rootsweb, there has been discussions on Penelope and Richard Stout. The story about Penelope was printed in one of our local newspapers in the summer of? Can anyone help me with which paper it was in and was it 2000 or 2001? May have been the Ocean County Observer or Asbury Park Press. I even had the article but can not find it now. Would anyone have the date of the shipwreck which she was on? The DC site is saying 1642 which wrecked on Sandy Hook? I am helping a Stout family trace their ancestors from Old Bridge & Asbury Park. Some names and dates from family bible included: Herbert Stout. Martha (or could be Mearttia or Marttia SMITH )Stout & JE Stout. Married Aug. 27, 1885. George J. Elixx__ Stout, son of Martha & JE Stout; born March 8, 1891. Old Bridge. Another date: Married Aug. 1, 1908 to Amanda Edgar. Elmer Stout, son of Amanda & Herbert Stout. Born May 29, 1910. Nellie Stout - daughter of Amanda & Herbert. Born Oct. 6, 1911. Herbert Stoddard Stout, son of Amanda & Herbert. Born Nov. 3, 1917. Herbert Stout, Sr. died Jan. 5, 1955 in Asbury Park. Clarence Augusta Stout son of Amanda and Herbert. Born Oct. 17, 1920. Died Oct. 19, 1976. Elmer LeRoy Stout, Sr. died Aug. 11, 1965 Nellie M. Johnson (Stout) died Dec. 3, 1967 Thank You. Genie Giberson

BURLINGTON CO. NJ, 29 August 1860, PO Mt. Holly, Evesham Twp. p. 1141 1141 1 1499 1468 MURRY Catharine 28 f b NJ 1141 2 1499 1468 MURRY Samuel 10 m b NJ 1141 3 1499 1468 MURRY Isaac J. 8 m b NJ 1141 4 1499 1468 MURRY Abraham 6 m b NJ 1141 5 1499 1468 MURRY Benjamin 4 m b NJ 1141 6 1499 1468 MURRY Emma 2 f b NJ 1141 7 1499 1468 MURRY Joshua 4/12 m b NJ 1141 8 1500 1469 PENN Joseph A. 77 m w gentleman NJ 1141 9 1500 1469 PENN Amy 59 f w NJ 1141 10 1500 1469 PENN William 17 m laborer NJ 1141 11 1501 1470 EWAN Isaac 36 m w carter NJ 1141 12 1501 1470 EWAN Mary 27 f w NJ 1141 13 1501 1470 EWAN David 9 m w NJ 1141 14 1501 1470 EWAN Rachel 2 f w NJ 1141 15 1502 1471 VENABEL Joseph 60 m w team driver NJ 1141 16 1502 1471 VENABEL Caroline 49 f w NJ 1141 17 1502 1471 VENABEL Joel 25 m w laborer NJ 1141 18 1502 1471 VENABEL Deborah 7 f w NJ 1141 19 1502 1471 HOUGH Sarah 45 f w laundress NJ 1141 20 1502 1471 HOUGH Eliza 10 f w NJ 1141 21 1503 1472 HANDY John H. 25 m b laborer NJ 1141 22 1503 1472 HANDY Julia A. 24 f b NJ 1141 23 1503 1472 HANDY Mary C. 18 f b NJ 1141 24 1503 1472 HANDY Martha A. 12 f b NJ 1141 25 1503 1472 HANDY Rachel A. 8 f b NJ 1141 26 1503 1472 HANDY William P. 5 m b NJ 1141 27 1504 1473 PENN Thomas 28 m w sawyer NJ 1141 28 1504 1473 PENN Harriet 29 f w NJ 1141 29 1504 1473 PENN Jacob 4 m w NJ 1141 30 1504 1473 PENN Joseph 2 m w NJ 1141 31 1504 1473 PENN Mary E. 1 f w NJ 1141 32 1505 1474 PETERS John S. 66 m w farmer NJ 1141 33 1505 1474 PETERS Mary 60 f w NJ 1141 34 1505 1474 BOZRATH Ann C. 18 f w NJ 1141 35 1505 1474 BOZRATH Mary 16 f w NJ 1141 36 1505 1474 GAUNTT William 17 m w NJ 1141 37 1505 1474 SILER John 5 m w NJ 1141 38 1506 1475 PENNELL William 65 m b laborer Del. 1141 39 1506 1475 PENNELL Mary 55 f b Del. 1141 40 1506 1475 SHEPHARD Hester 75 f b Del. [email protected] "Dogs leave paw prints on our hearts."

In a message dated 11/21/2002 5:10:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Does anyone have access to an 1850 census for Raritan, NJ. > There is mention of a Jacob Johnson on it can someone look up Jacob and let > > me know his age, occupation and any other pertinent information? Where is > or > was Raritan? > Monmouth County Sept 24, 1850 Jacob Johnson 39 Mariner born Denmark Sarah 35 Mary 14 Jacob 3