Chris, In "The town Records of Newtown" 31 Mar 1669, Richard Hunt & John Burroughs lay out land for Daniel and Samuel Blomfield. This would further enforce at least a close relationship. The court documents putting Daniel's age at 30 in 1668 certainly points to his being the 1st born of William and Isabel. While looking through this same compilation of Records of Newtown, I came across a land grant record which mentions property north of "John Sackett's "land. The date is 2 May 1674. I couldn't place this John Sackett unless it was land owned by a John of Westfield or John of New Haven. ( could be a typo I suppose, and is actually Joseph and not John) Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Sackett" <chris@sackett.org.uk> To: <SACKETT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 5:02 AM Subject: RE: [SACKETT-L] Will of Isabel (Pearce) (Sackett) Bloomfield 1682 > Dear Illyce, Patty, Thurmon, > > Part of my researches at the FHL, SLC was a study of the Newtown (Long > Island) Court & Town Records. I have a whole pile of photocopies which I > need to sort out. However a quick look seems to answer the question about > Daniel Bloomfield. > > In a Court action at "Midlbourg" on 2 & 3 Feb 1668/69 there is reference to > "The Testimony of Dannel Bloofield aged 30 years". This would give a birth > date of 1638 making him the older brother of John (bap 1645) and Samuel (bap > 1647). This same Court case makes it clear that Daniel and Samuel were > brothers. > > As far as I can recall we do not know when William Bloomfield's first wife > Sarah died, nor when he married Isabel Pearce Sackett. My guess from the > wording of Isabel's will would be that Daniel was indeed her natural son, > indicating that her marriage to William Bloomfield would have been in 1636 > or 1637 (Simon died in 1635). > > Also among the papers I copied is an Indenture of 1694/95 recording the > transfer of land from Daniel Bloomfield to Joseph Sackett. I'll type this & > post it to the List. There is a lot of other good material in these papers, > including the 1669 Court action brought by John Holden against "Samuell > Blomfield for Calling him sonn of a whore ...". > > Regards, > Chris > > > ==== SACKETT Mailing List ==== > Tried the RootsWeb Archives and Search Engine on the Web yet...? > http://lists.rootsweb.com/~archiver/lists/ > http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Tom, I have the record of 2 May 1674 from the Town Records of Newtown. In fact there are two consecutive records on page 127, as follows: "Laid out by us R: Hunt & Jo: Burroughes for Joseph Sacket which Danell Blomfield gave him of his right 12 ackers liing in the east sid of Samuel Mores land there being a highway betwene them going to traines medo by the way six rod broad northwest his land is 40 rods and northeast 48 rods long may the 2: 1674 Sameuell Wood hath ten ackers the towne gave him at the northeast end of Joseph sackets land 40 rod square northeast 40 rods long from the end of Jo: Sackets land and 40 rod north west as Joseph sackets land lieth" The second of these records is obviously the one from which John Sackett's name is taken. But does it mean John Sackett or Joseph Sackett? I have difficulty trying to understand the record anyway. Anyone care to make a judgement on this entry? Regards, Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Smith [mailto:tsmith26@comcast.net] > Sent: 25 October 2003 13:04 > To: SACKETT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SACKETT-L] Will of Isabel (Pearce) (Sackett) Bloomfield > 1682 > > > Chris, In "The town Records of Newtown" 31 Mar 1669, Richard Hunt & John > Burroughs lay out land for Daniel and Samuel Blomfield. This would further > enforce at least a close relationship. The court documents > putting Daniel's > age at 30 in 1668 certainly points to his being the 1st born of > William and > Isabel. > While looking through this same compilation of Records of Newtown, I came > across a land grant record which mentions property north of "John > Sackett's > "land. The date is 2 May 1674. I couldn't place this John > Sackett unless it > was land owned by a John of Westfield or John of New Haven. ( could be a > typo I suppose, and is actually Joseph and not John) > Tom