Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File S 2889, for Levi Mundy, New Jersey
Page 1

(8-1776)

SERVICE | NUMBER
New Jersey | Mundy or Monday, Levi | S.2889

carded
CONTENTS  Loaded
Page 2

Letter to N. Sergeant, Oct. 21, 1853

[crossed out: J.S. Pollard & co., Dec 24/'53]

J.S. Pollard & co., Feb. 7, 1854
Same Feb. 15, 1854

See [illegible]

March 6/'54

J.S. Pollard, August 29, 1855

Mundy, Levi
N.J. S.2889

33.135 | 33.135

New Jersey
Mundy
Levi Mundy of (blank) in the State of N.Jersey who was a private in the (blank) commanded by Captain (blank) of the (blank) commanded by (blank) in the Revolution line for 6 months. N.J.

Inscribed on the Roll of Trenton at the rate of 20 Dollars (blank) Cents per annum to commence on the 4th day of March, 1831.

Certificate of Pension issued the 25th day of May 1853 and sent to [crossed out: Hon. J. Cooper, U.S. Senator] J.S. Pollard, Esq., present.

Arrears to the 4th (blank) 
Semi-anl. allowance ending (blank) 
                                   
{Revolutionary Claim Act June 7, 1832}

Recorded by S.R. Weightman, Clerk 

Book C2; Vol. 3; Page 147
Page 3

[crossed out: No. 38,186]
No. 38,185

(Rev. 1)

April 15/'57
Page 4

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

On this 15th day of April One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty one before me, Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County and State aforesaid, personally appeared Levi Mundy, a resident of the Township of Piscataway in said County, aged Eighty nine years, who being first duly sworn according to law doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the benefit of the Act of Congress, passed June 7th 1832. That he entered the service in the war of the Revolution as a volunteer in a company of Militia, commanded by Capt. Robert Ross in a Regiment of Militia commanded by Col Moses Jacques. That he entered the service under the said Capt. Robert Ross on or about the first of April 1780 and continued to serve until the first of September, five months. That during the fall of the year 1780 and the winter of 1780 and 1781, Capt. Ross' Company was frequently called out for the purpose of protecting the inhabitants living along the sound and Raritan River. That in this service he, the said declarant, was engaged three months. That on the first of March 1781 he, this declarant, again entered the service under the said Capt. Robert Ross and continued to serve under him until the first of November, eight months. That during the winter of 1781 and 1782 he, this declarant, served as a Minuteman. That he again entered the service under the said Capt. Robert Ross on the first of April 1782 and continued to serve until the first of December following, eight months, and was present with a party of men from Capt. Ross' Company near Crows Mills or the Raritan River, where a British foraging party attempted to drive away Maj. Porter's...
Page 5

...Milch cows [Dairy cows] and assisted to retake them. That he, this declarant again entered the service, under the said Capt. Ross on the first of March 1783, and continued to serve until the first of May following, two months, making in all Twenty six months exclusive of his services as a Minuteman. That during the above named terms of service he, this declarant, was engaged in numerous skirmishes with the British foraging parties that infested the country, bordering on Staten Island Sound and Raritan River.

That he, this declarant, has no documentary evidence and that he knows of but one person whose testimony he can procure to certify to his services, viz.: Joseph Sofield, a pensioner of the United States. His other companions in arms having all departed this life. That he now receives a pension from the State of New Jersey. That he relinquishes every other claim whatever to a pension or annuity except the present and declares that his name is not on the Pension Roll of the agency of any State, excepting the Pension Roll of the State of New Jersey. The words "five months" underlined (sp.)
s/ Levi Mundy

Sworn to and subscribed the day and year aforesaid before me, Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County of Middlesex and State of New Jersey. The words "five months" underlined (sp.) before execution.

s/ Alanson Newton, Judge &c.
Page 6

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

Joseph Sofield, of the Township of Woodbridge in the County and State aforesaid, being first duly sworn according to law, on his oath, doth depose and say: That he is Eighty eight years of age and a pensioner of the United States. That he is personally acquainted with Levi Mundy, the applicant for a pension. That he has heard the declaration of Levi Mundy made for the purpose of obtaining a pension & read, and that he verily believes the statements therein made are true. That this deponent was well acquainted with the said Levi Mundy during the War of the Revolution. That this deponent and the said Levi Mundy entered the service in the War of the Revolution at the time specified by the said Levi Mundy in his declaration aforesaid and served as volunteers and Minutemen in a company of Militia commanded by Capt. Robert Ross. That this deponent and declarant performed the same tours of service as specified in said Mundy's declaration aforesaid. To wit, from April 1780 to September of the same year, five months. Three month in the fall and winter of 1780 & 1781. From March 1781 to November of the same year, eight months. That the said Levi Mundy served with deponent as a Minuteman during the winter
of 1781 & 1782. Three months, from April 1782 to December following, eight months, and from the first of March 1783 to the first of May following, two months. Making in all Twenty six months, exclusive of said Mundy's service as a Minuteman. This deponent further says that Moses Jacques was col(onel) of the militia and Nathaniel Heard was general. That the company commanded by Capt. Robert Ross was called the Bonhamtown Company. That the said Levi Mundy is a person of good...
Page 7

...character, and is so considered by all his acquaintances. That he, the said Mundy, is in indigent circumstances and dependent on his friends for his support, and further this deponent saith not.
s/ Joseph Sofield (X - his mark)

Sworn and subscribed this 18th day of April, 1851 before me.
s/ Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County and State aforesaid.
Page 8

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

Muford Wilson of the Township of Piscataway in the County and State aforesaid, being first duly sworn according to law, on his oath saith that he is Sixty six years of age. That he has been intimately acquainted with Levi Mundy from childhood. That it is currently reported in the neighborhood in which the said Levi Mundy lives, that he, the said Mundy, rendered service as a volunteer and Minuteman during the war of the Revolution and that he, this deponent, concurs in that opinion.

That the said Levi Mundy is a man of undoubted truth and veracity and is so considered by all his acquaintances. That the said Levi Mundy is in indigent
circumstances and dependent on his friends for his support.
s/ Mulford Wilson

Sworn to and subscribed this 15th day of April before me.
s/ Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County & State aforesaid.
Page 9

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

Isaac Stelle of the Township of Piscataway in the County and State aforesaid, being first duly sworn according to law on his oath [duplicate: oath] depose and say that he is Sixty one years of age. That he has been for many years past, intimately acquainted with [duplicate: with] Levi Mundy, an applicant for a pension.

That the said Levi Mundy claims to have been a soldier and to have rendered service as a volunteer and Minuteman in the War of the Revolution, and as such
[crossed out: has] has for many years past been so considered by his acquaintances. That the said Mundy is a person of good moral character and his statements are entitled to credit. That this deponent does not entertain the least doubt that the said Levi Mandy rendered the services specified by him in his declaration for a pension. This deponent further saith that the said Levi Mundy is infirm and in low circumstances and dependent in a great measure on his friends, for his support, and further this deponent saith not.
s/ Isaac Stelle

Sworn and subscribed this 15th day of April 1857 before me.
s/ Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County and State aforesaid.
Page 10

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

I have been, for many years past, personally acquainted with Levi Mundy, a resident of the Township of Piscataway in this County, an applicant for a pension under the Act of Congress, passed June 7, 1832 and who resided in Perth Amboy five years ago. That the said Levi Mundy has always been of good credit and reputation and his attestation is deserving of full faith and credit. The said Levi Mundy is an aged man and this deponent has no doubt (he) is of the age of Eighty nine years as he states. He is infirm and unable to labor and as this deponent is infirmed and believes dependent for support upon his relations.
s/ James Parker

Sworn to and subscribed this 12th day of April 1857 before me.
s/ Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County & State aforesaid.
Page 11

I certify that I am personally acquainted with Joseph Sofield, Mulford Wilson, Isaac Stelle and Hon. James Parker, witnesses who testified in the case of Levi Mundy, an applicant for a pension, and that all and each of them are worthy upright persons whose integrity and veracity are irreproachable and undoubted and that I do not hesitate to say that their testimony in the above case is reliable and true.

I also further certify that Levi Mundy, the applicant, by reason of age and infirmity is unable to attend Court.
s/ Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County of Middlesex and State of New Jersey.

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

I, Nicholas Booraem, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County & State above mentioned, do hereby certify that Alanson Newton, whose genuine signatures appear above, is and was at the time of signing, duly commissioned and sworn, and that all his official acts as such are entitled to full faith and credit, and that the aforesaid County Court is a Court of Record having general jurisdiction.

Given under my hand and seal of office at New Brunswick this Twenty sixth day of April A.D. 1857.
s/ N. Booraem, Clerk
Page 12

2889
Rev(olutionary) War
INVALID.
File No. 2889
Levi Munday
Pri(vate) Rev(olutionary) War
Act June 7th 1832.
Index: - Vol. A, Page 268
{Arrangement of 1870.}
Page 13

38,185
Levi Munday
N.J.
Alanson Newton, July 18/'51
Hon. J. Cooper, Feb. 4, 1852
(same) Sep. 15, 1852
(same) April 7, 1853

Act June 1832
Page 14

No. 38,185
Levi Munday
N.J.

Act of 7th June 1832

To: Alanson Newton, July 18th 1851
To: Hon. J. Cooper, Feb. 4th 1852
(same) Sep. 15/'52
(same) April 7, 1853
Page 15

(No. 3)
June 9/'52
Page 16

Abstract of Pay Rolls discharged by Isaac Halsey, Paymaster to the Militia of the Counties of Essex & Middlesex.

No. | Date of Service | Regiment | Officers Names | Where Served | Under Whom | Amount
271 | July 31, 1779 | Middlesex | Capt. Ross | Woodbridge | Major Hayes | $245.5.3
283 | Aug 19th | (Middlesex) | (Capt. Ross) | (Woodbridge) | (Major Hayes) | 229.2.6
285 | Oct 18th | (Middlesex) | (Capt. Ross) | Eliz(abeth) Town | Col. Seeley | 568.17.6
286 | Sep. 18th | (Middlesex) | (Capt. Ross) | (Eliz(abeth)) Town | (Col. Seeley) | 217.15.(6)
309 | Nov. 1st | Essex | (Capt. Ross) | (Eliz(abeth)) Town | (Col. Seeley) | 442.14.8
310 | Dec 15th |  (Essex) |  (Capt. Ross) | (Eliz(abeth)) Town | (Col. Seeley) | 405.(14).(8)


State of New Jersey
I, Thomas S. Allison, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true extract from Book B of Auditor's Accounts page 82 &c. as taken from and compared with the original record in my office: and I do further certify that there are no Muster Rolls of Capt. Ross on file in my Office.

In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Seal of Office at Trenton this Twenty ninth day of June Eighteen Hundred & Fifty two.
s/ Thos. S. Allison, Secretary of State
Page 17

Levi Munday
N.J.

Adm(itted) June 7 1832

6 mos. for $20 per annum from 4 March 1831.

Cert(ificate sent) to Hon J. Cooper, Pottsville, Pa.
Page 18

State of New Jersey
County of Middlesex//

Be it known that on this Twenty third day of January, in the year of our Lord 1853, personally appeared before me, one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County aforesaid, James L. Street, a resident of the City of New Brunswick in the County of Middlesex and State of New Jersey, who being duly sworn according to law on his oath declares; That he is Forty seven years of age. That he has been engaged during the last two years in procuring pensions and bounty lands for those who were entitled thereunto; That for the purpose of making himself as familiar as possible with the history and incidents of the Revolutionary War in the State of New Jersey, he made the acquaintance in the month of November A.D. 1853, of Levi Mundy of Piscataway, the last United States male Revolutionary Pensioner of Middlesex County, New Jersey; That he saw and conversed with the said Levi Mundy frequently afterwards and saw him a few days only before his death, which occurred (if deponent lightly remembers) on the 26th of May last; (1854). That
he always found the said Levi Mundy cheerful and very willing to converse on the subject of the Revolution; That his mind was always clear of confession, his memory good and his power of combining facts and giving a straight forward connected narrative of events, was usually good, for a man of his age, (92), and limited education. That the said Levi Mundy told deponent that he had always lived in...
Page 19

...Middlesex County; that he served in the Middlesex Militia of the Revolution, part of four years, but not all the time; that as near as he could remember, his service was in the aggregate seventeen months; that he belonged to Captain Robert Ross' Company, Col. Crow's Reg(iment) and served in 1778, 1779, 1780, and 1782: That deponent has since ascertained from other authentic sources that Captain Ross commanded a company of Middlesex Militia some six months in 1778, some six months in 1779 and that he recruited and commanded a Company in 1782, but how long during 1782, or whether he was in command in 1780 or 1781. Deponent has not been able to learn from any other source than the statements of the said Levi Mundy, who supposed that the said Captain Ross commanded a company of Essex County men in 1781. That when deponent inquired of the said Levi Mundy why he was drawing so small a pension, he replied that when application was made for his pension, he did not know that the amount of his pension would depend on the length of his service, but that he was told that it required only six months service to entitle a soldier to a pension and that he therefore said and made oath that he served six months, which was true. But that he never said that he served no longer, which would not have been true. That the said Levi Mundy also told deponent that he served some weeks in Captain Freeman's and Captain Davis' companies and that his service in those companies was after...
Page 20

...his first and before his last service in Capt. Ross' company, but he could not remember precisely how long he served in either of said companies.

The said Levi Mundy further told deponent of several men whom he had known as refugees and Tories during the Revolution, that afterwards drew pensions from the United States and one of whom drew Forty pounds per annum from the British Government, and Eighty dollars per annum from the United States; while
others whose names he gave deponent, never applied for pension and some whom he knew that did apply, never obtained their pensions, although they served two and three years during the war; he said further that he never knew why these things were so, nor why some of his neighbors drew so much more pension than he did.

Deponent on one occasion asked the said Levi Money, how long any of the militia of New Jersey served during the Revolutionary War? To which he replied that there were Minutemen who served whenever they were called out and until they were relieved by other Minutemen or by other troops. That there were drafted men for one month and three months and at one time there were three thousand men drafted for five months. That there were drafted men for six months and nine months and one year, many of whom served fifteen months. And that there were enlisted men and volunteers, for during the war; and that he had been acquainted with some young men who, as volunteers, were transferred from...
Page 21

...one company to another and served all the time and nearly all through the war.

He further declares on his oath as aforesaid, that he has ascertained from other reliable sources of information that the above statements, as given by the said Levi Mundy, are generally true and he (deponent) has no doubt of their truth; or that the said Levi Mundy served full seventeen months as he stated to deponent. And this he believes because of the universal traditions of the neighborhood; because of the estimation in which the said Levi Mundy was held by all his neighbors as a truthful, good man, because of the uniformity of his statements to deponent at different times, and because his statements all correspond with historical records as far as deponent has been able to trace them.

He further declares on his oath as aforesaid that he has at four different times under different powers of attorney carefully examined the whole of the Revolutionary records in the office of the Secretary of State at Trenton, New Jersey, and that he has found the following facts, which should be known at the Pension office. Viz.: That there are no complete rolls of any Militia Company of the Revolution now in existence in said office; That there is a record of Depreciation Certificates in said office, which shows to what County a Militia man belonged, but shows in no case, to what company he belonged, or how long he served and therefore, that no Certificate from the Secretary of State of New Jersey, as to militia services (except in a...
Page 22

...very few cases where there are detached fragments of rolls,) proves or can prove any thing further than the fact that a man of a certain name served in the militia of a certain County. There is also a record of the payment of sums of money to officers who are named with their location, & frequently the regiment to which they belonged, and it is only from the dates of these payments that it is ascertained from said records when such officers were in service, but in no case it be ascertained from said records how long any officer served; said records further show the names of the officers and men generally of the State or Continental Line with the companies and regiments to which they belonged and their services down to August 1st 1781, but nothing later.

He further declares on his oath as aforesaid that he has no interest whatever in any claim in which this affidavit can be used as evidence and further this deponent at this time saith not.
s/ James L. Street

Sworn and subscribed before me this Twenty third day of January A.D. 1853, and I hereby certify that the above signed declarant is a resident of the City of New Brunswick in the County of Middlesex and State of New Jersey, that he is a credible person and entitled to full faith...
Page 23

...and confidence in the statements by him sworn and subscribed as above of the truth of which I have no doubt. I further certify that I have no interest in any claim in which the within affidavit can be used.

Given under my hand officially at the City of New Brunswick in the State of New Jersey this Twenty third day of January A.D. 1853.
s/ Bethnel Ward, Judge of Common Pleas

State of New Jersey
County of Middlesex//

I, Nicholas Booraem, Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas in & for the County & State aforesaid do hereby certify that Bethnel Ward, whose genuine signature appears above is and was, at the time of signing the same, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in & for the County of Middlesex, duly commissioned & sworn.

Given under my hand & seal of office at New Brunswick this Twenty fourth day of January A.D. 1853.
s/ N. Booraem, Clerk
Page 24

J.S. Pollard & Co., Washington, Feb. 17, 1854.

Appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions in the case of Levi Munday of New Jersey.

Respectfully referred to the Com(missioner) of Pensions for report.

Deponent Feb. 17/'54 [illegible]

Col. Niles, Feb. 20/'54

[illegible], 18 Feb. 1854
Page 25

Washington City
February 17th 1854

Sir,

We have the honor to request your action on the pension claim of Levi Munday of New Jersey, a Revolutionary Soldier, upon the facts set forth in our letters of the 19th Dec. last, and 11th Jan. to the Commissioner of Pensions, from whose decision in said application we ask an appeal to you with the request that you will call for all the papers on file in that case for the purpose of a review of that decision.

With much respect
Your obe(dient) serv(ant), 
s/ J.S. Pollard & Co.

Hon: Robert McClelland, Sec. of the Interior
Page 26

Brief in the case of Levi Mundy, (blank) County and State of N.J.
acts [duplicate: Act] June 7, 1832 
Claim, ("original," or [crossed out: "for increase."])
Proof exhibited, (if original.)

Is it documentary, traditionary, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Pos(itive) proof of service, two witnesses who served with him, one a pensioner. Record evidence of the same of his [illegible] at the time he alleges that he served.

(If for increase.)
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?
He was also pensioned by the State of N.J. as a soldier of the Revolution.
s/ Thornton Triplett, Examining Clerk.

Hon. J. Cooper, Pittsville, Pa.

Name and residence of Agent
[crossed out: J.S. Pollard, Esq., present]
Page 27

Com(missioner of) Pensions
March 6th 1854

Reports upon the appeal in the case of Levi Munday under act of June 7th 1832.
Page 28

Pension Office
March 6th 1854

Sir,

In compliance with your instructions, I have the honor to make the following report in the case of Levi Munday of New Jersey under the act of June 7th 1832 on the appeal of Messrs. J.S. Pollard & Co. of this City.

The claim is asserted for twenty six months service in the militia of New Jersey, instead of six months, for which it has been admitted; and believing that a statement of what is understood to have been the obligations of the inhabitants of New Jersey from August 11th 1776 to render that description of service, will not only enable you to understand the question in issue between this office and the appellants, but be useful for reference. I take the liberty of submitting it as a part of my report.

On the 11th of August 1776, the Provincial Congress of New Jersey passed an ordinance directing all able bodied men between the ages of sixteen and fifty to be immediately enrolled and to be formed into two divisions, which were to serve one month alternately.

On the 14th of March 1777, the Legislature of the then State of New Jersey passed an act authorizing the Captain General, or Commander-in-Chief, in case of any invasion, insurrection or alarm to call into actual service the whole militia or such detachments as he may deem necessary; and also, on application from Congress or the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, on certain conditions, to order the entire militia, or any part thereof, to assist the said Continental Army in any of the neighboring States. And further, authorizing any militia officer, in case of sudden alarm, to order out his men to annoy the enemy, without written orders from the Commander-in-Chief; but requiring him to make a return of his proceedings to said Commander, or Brigadier General as soon as possible...
Page 29

...2.

By the above act, all former ordinances and laws for regulating the militia were repealed.

On the 5th of June 1777, a supplement to the act of March 14th 1777 was passed authorizing the appointment of guards, of any number of militia, to be stationed or employed in any part of the State, to be relieved in such way as may be judged most conducive to the public safety and benefit.

On the 23rd of September 1777, an act was passed to explain and amend the two last acts aforesaid. By the 4th section, the enrolled militia were divided by lot into eight parts. By the 5th (section) the Captain General or the Commander-in-Chief was authorized in case of rebellion or invasion, or in case any portion of the militia should be requested by Congress to assist the Continental Army in New Jersey, or in the adjoining States, to call into actual service any portion of that force, not exceeding one half, by classes as aforesaid. The first draft to be composed of number one of each company; "and in case that shall not be sufficient for the emergency then number two shall be drawn, and so on, by classes from time-to-time, as occasion may require."

The next act was passed on the 14th of April 1778, which repealed all former legislation on the subject of the militia. The 20th section of the act kept up the old classification; but exempted Artillery Companies from its operation. The 21st section also retained the provision in the 5th section of the
preceding act, with the addition that at least four claims could be called out on the requisition of the executive power of any adjoining State The Colonel or Commanding Officer of each regiment to determine the tour of duty of the Commission and the Captains of the respective companies the tour-of-duty of his non-commissioned officers. By the 22nd section, the Governor or Commander-in-Chief, by the advice and consent of the Privy Council, was authorized to call out station, and continue by reliefs, so many classes as may be deemed necessary, not exceeding four. By the 23rd section...
Page 30

...3

the Governor or Commander-in-Chief was authorized to call out the entire militia, if deemed necessary, to repel invasion or to restore the peace of the State. By the 24th section, commanding officers of companies were vested with the same authority which was granted by the act of 14th of March 1777.

The next and last general law for regulating training and arranging the militia was passed on the 8th of January 1781. It also repealed all previous legislation on the subject; but preserved the main features of the Act of April 14th 1778 in reference to the classes of eight and the performance of duty in rotation, in tours of one month.

In addition to the general laws above referred to, several special acts were passed by the Legislature for embodying the militia, for limited periods, for the defense of the frontiers of the State, the calling out the same by monthly rotation, having been, "found from the local situation of some Counties to be inconvenient and expensive and interfering with the business of agriculture.:

The first act of this character, of which we have knowledge, was passed on the 2nd of June 1779, which provided for the embodying of one thousand of the militia, exclusive of field officers, to serve until the 15th of December next unless sooner discharged.

The quota of Middlesex County, to which Munday, the claimant, belonged, was one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, three sergeants, three corporals and sixty nine privates. The service ended on the 15th of December following, to wit, in December 1779.

On the 9th of October 1778, an act was passed for raising four thousand men by voluntary enlistment; but it was not carried into effect.

The next special act was passed on the 7th of June 1780, which was for raising six hundred and twenty four men, exclusive of field officers, to serve until the 1st of January ensuing, unless sooner discharged. Forty seven of the men thus to be raised, including officers and horsemen,...
Page 31

...4

were directed to be stationed in the County of Middlesex, on the north side of the River Raritan, under the command of one captain, one Lieutenant, and one Ensign; the whole to be under the command of Major Thomas Hayes; and two hundred and sixty two men of the said levy, including commissioned officers and horsemen, were to be stationed in the County of Monmouth and in the County of Middlesex on the south side of the Raritan (River), to be commanded by three captains, four lieutenants and three ensigns, the whole thereof to be commanded by Colonel Asher Holmes.

The men thus raised continued in service for the period specified in the act, to wit, until the 1st of January 1781.

On the 26th of December 1780, an act was passed for raising eight hundred and twenty men to serve until the 1st day of January 1782 unless sooner discharged. Of this levy eighty six men, including three commissioned officers, four sergeants, four corporals and one drummer were to be stationed in the County of Middlesex, on the north side of the Raritan (River), to be commanded by Captain Matthew Freeman, Lieutenant James Dunn and Asher Fitz Randolph of the said County of Middlesex, and thirty six men including two commissioned officers, two sergeants, two corporals, one drummer and two horsemen to be stationed on the south side of the Raritan (River) in the said County of Middlesex, to be commanded by Lieut. Simon Van Winckle and Ensign James Morgan, Jr., of the said County. This levy served until January 1st 1782.

On the 27th of June 1781, the Governor was authorized to call out seven hundred and fifty of the militia of the State, to serve for three months in conjunction with the Federal Army, which troops were to be exempted from service in the militia for nine months thereafter, unless in case of invasion. It does not appear however, that...
Page 32

...5

any troops were called out and embodied under the act.

The last special act was passed on the 29th of December 1781 and authorized four hundred and twenty two men to be raised, which were to take the field on or before the first day of March One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty two, unless in the County of Sussex (where they were directed to be ready to take the field on or before the first day of April succeeding) and to continue in service until the 15th of December ensuing, unless sooner discharged. To the County of Middlesex on the north side of the River Raritan, one Company was assigned to consist of twenty four privates, two commissioned officers, two sergeants, one corporal and one horseman to be raised and commanded by Captain Asher Fitz Randolph and Ensign Lewis Fitz Randolph of the said County; and on the south side of the Raritan (River) in the same County, one company to consist of sixteen privates, one commissioned officer, one sergeant, one corporal, one horseman to be raised and commanded by Lieutenant Morgan of Middlesex.

From the above synopsis of the laws of New Jersey, it will be seen that as early as the 23rd of September 1777, the body of the militia of that State was divided into classes of eight, that each class served one month in eight, unless in case of general invasion or on the requisition of Congress, or an adjoining State, and that that organization, making the tours of one month duration, was kept up to the close of the war. And further, that the special laws not only set forth the duration of the service of the troops called out under them but named the Counties in which they were to be raised and stationed and the officers who were to command them.

With these general facts in mind, we can readily test the truth of the averments [i.e., allegations] of Munday...
Page 33

...6
who claims to have served twenty six months in the militia, commencing April 1st 1780 and ending May 1st 1783, under Captain Robert Ross of Middlesex, (to which County Munday belonged) and in the regiment commanded by Col. Moses Jaques.

Munday states that his first tour was 5 months from April to September 1780.
Second (tour was) 3 (months in the) fall and winter of 1781.
Third (tour was) 8 (months) from March to November.
Fourth (tour was) Minuteman winter 1781 & 1782.
Fifth (tour was) 8 (months) from 1st of April to December 1782.
Sixth (tour was) 2 (months from) March to May 1783.

In all twenty six months, excluding service as a Minuteman.

The above service could not have been rendered, as we have shown, under the general laws of the State; we must therefore test it by the special laws referred to.

The first act of that description known to us, was passed on the 2nd of June 1779. The service under which terminated December 15th 1779. The second (act) on the 7th of June 1780, the service under which terminated January 1st 1781. The third (act) on the 26th of December 1780, the service under which terminated January 1st 1782. The fourth (act) and last (act) on the 29th of December 1781 requiring the troops to take the field on or before the 15th of March 1782 and to continue in service until the 15th of December ensuing, unless sooner discharged.

On comparing the requisitions of these special laws with Munday's statement of his service, it will (be) seen that there is no congruity whatever, except in the alleged 5th tour of 8 months from April 1782 to December 1782.

But we have the evidence of the law authorizing the raising of that description of troops, that Captain Ross did not command those raised in Middlesex, nor...
Page 34

...7

those raised in any other County of the State. The Officers who commanded the Middlesex quota, it will be seen above, were Captain Asher Fitz Randolph, Ensign Lewis Fitz Randolph and Lieutenant Morgan, and they were stationed on both sides of the River Raritan.

Thus too, in the previous Special Acts, the names of the officers assigned to the command of the troops are, as I have said, invariably stated, and in no instance does the name of Captain Robert Ross appear. This fact is I believe conclusive that Ross must have commanded a company divided, under the general law, in classes of eight, during the whole period he was in service; and if so it will be seen that the pension now drawn by Munday greatly exceeds the allowance for the service actually rendered.

When Ross was commissioned is not shown; but it appears by the Certificate of the Secretary of the State of New Jersey marked No. 3, that certain of his Pay Rolls were discharged by Isaac Halsey, Paymaster, for the Counties of Essex and Middlesex in July 1779, and from the paper marked No. 6, that a balance of pay was received by him on the 8th of June 1784. It is probable therefore, that he was in service until the end of the war.

Munday States that his service under him terminated in May 1783, long after active hostilities in New Jersey had ceased. If, therefore, his service commenced in April 1780 and terminated at the period alleged, the entire service rendered by him in rotation of classes (classes of eight) could not have exceeded four months and nineteen days; whereas he has been pensioned for six months service and I repeat, the opinion expressed in my letter to Messrs. Pollard & Co., which induced them to appeal to you, that the allowance already granted was made in the most liberal spirit and was not fully authorized by a very rigid investigation of the testimony. In looking at the case, I place...
Page 35

...8

no confidence whatever in the statements of Sofield; for though a worthy man, his memory is greatly impaired, as is evident not only from his various and
discrepant statements, but the Records of New Jersey, which show that he could not have served as alleged.

The papers numbered from one to nineteen are herewith submitted.

I have the honor to be very respectfully your obe(dient) ser(vant),
s/ L.P. Waldo, Commissioner

Hon. Robert McClelland, Secretary of the Interior.
Page 36

Feb. 6/'54
(No. 14)
Page 37

Washington City
February 6th 1854.

Sir,

We have respectfully to call your attention to our letter to you of the 19th Dec. last, relative to the Revolutionary Pension claim of George Munday of New Jersey, and to that the same may receive the speedy action of your office.

Very respectfully your obe(dient) ser(vant)
s/ J.S. Pollard & Co.

Hon. L.P. Waldo, Com(missioner) of Pensions
Page 38

Washington City
February 10th 1854.

Sir,

We have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th inst(ant), in reply to ours of the 19th Dec. last, on the subject of the claim of Levi Munday, in which you call our attention to your previous letter of the 21st Oct. last, to N. Sargent, Esq., on the same subject.

In the last named letter, we find that you take exception to not only the testimony upon which the claim was originally submitted but express with much earnestness the opinion, that the evidence now filed will not justify an allowance for more than six months service, alleging as a reason, that "the stories of Munday & his principal witness, Joseph Sofield, bear too strong a resemblance to each other to be the production of two minds &c." A statement of the circumstances under which those declarations were made may serve to explain this point. We state the fact candidly, that previous to the making of these affidavits by Munday & Sofield, they were often together for days at a time, discussing the events which occurred at the period to which they afterwards referred (to) in their affidavits, and thus it was that each was enabled to refresh the memory of the other in regard to facts and circumstances, which the lapse of time might otherwise have rendered indistinct in their memories. How often does it occur with us, numbering perhaps but half their years, that we have facts vividly recalled to our minds, the memory of which has been lost sight of for many years,- this is the...
Page 39

...experience of all, from early childhood to four score years & ten", and we respectfully submit that the fact that the same hands wrote down these memories, if such it be, is not a certain indication that the mind that directed the pen, concocted "stories" (as you are pleased to call them) to suit a case and make two old men swear to what was not true. Again, (referring to your letter of the 21st Oct. last,) you further state, "It would appear remarkable that two men should have performed precisely the same service in the militia for three years and "under the same officer, and yet from the declaration of "Munday, and the first affidavit of Sofield, it appears that this, "was the fact," "But in the declaration of Sofield for a pension "made about twenty years before this affidavit, he states very, "different periods of service and under different officers." On this subject we reply, that to our minds, there is nothing very remarkable in the fact that two men should have served for the period and under the officer named, when we take into consideration the peculiar service performed, the history of the locality in which they have spent their whole existence. Had they been marched far from their homes and mustered into reg(iments) and brigades, then the ordinary transfers of private soldiers from one company to another would naturally suggest the chances in favor of their separation at times, but they were acting, all the while acting, within a very limited arena, and being neighbors &
friends, it is not surprising that such ties should have kept them together. Their services were moreover, voluntary, and not compulsory, as with soldiers in a regularly organized & appointed army. It will be observed, in order if possible to reconcile to your mind the...
Page 40

...discrepancies alleged to exist in the statement made by Sofield after the lapse of twenty years, that these men were perhaps not continuously together in service during the war, but were called out for short periods as the exigencies of the times seemed to require, and the hiatus (sp.) between one period of service and another, may have been the occasion of dissimilar periods of service & other officers, than those in which Munday was with him.

We positively disclaim any expression of unkind feeling in the discussion of the merits of this claim but one of us, having personally known for a long period of years both these venerable men, (Sofield is now dec(eased)) and their universally conceded honesty and good standing in the community in which they so long resided, advanced for in the documents accompanying this case, by the most distinguished reliable men in that section of the State in which these men have spent their lives, that we must be permitted to express our conscientious conviction, that a more honest, just and fair demand of similar character is seldom presented to the consideration of your office. We are sustained in this, our belief of the justness of this claim, not only by the testimony in your office and our own knowledge of Munday, but by the unanimous verdict of the Legislature of New Jersey in granting to him the highest rate of pension ever allowed by the State to a private soldier of the Revolution. We have no hesitation in saying that if our convictions were less
strong and we entertained a shadow of a doubt in regard to the truthfulness of Sofield's evidence, we would at once abandon the further pursuit of the whole matter. Before concluding this communication, permit us also to call your attention to the...
Page 41

...comments in your said letter of Oct. last, on the testimony of John Mirex, which you designate as, "more direct & positive as to the service in 1780, but is too general as it respects the subsequent periods." It is upon this deposition above that the case can be allowed and that not to exceed six months." "The record evidence of Capt. Ross' service after 1779 will also support this position." The evidence of the services of Capt Ross, indicated by the several amounts paid to him, as shown by the Certificate of the Sec. of State of New Jersey, we presume would have led to a different conclusion than you seem to have arrived at, if we take into consideration the sum total paid to him between July 1779 & the 8th June 1784.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that all the evidences in this case, together with the correspondence in relation to it, may be submitted for the action of the Secretary of the Interior and that we may receive due notice of their transmission to him.

Very respectfully your obe(dient) ser(vant)
s/ J.S. Pollard & Co.

Hon. L.P. Waldo, Com(missioner) of Pensions

Feb. 10/'54
(No. 15)
Page 42

(No. 10)
Jan. 25/'53
Page 43

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

John Mirex, a resident of the Township of Plainfield, being first duly sworn according to law on his oath saith. That he is Eighty eight years of age. That he was a soldier during the latter part of the War of the Revolution. That he was acquainted with Capt. Mathew Freeman, Capts. Ross and Manning, and several others. That he served under both of the first named Captains Freeman and Ross. That he was personally acquainted with Levi Mundy, a private in Capt. Ross' company. That this deponent served with the said Levi Mundy under Capt. Ross one tour in 1780, (thinks the length of said tour was five months) and some other tours in the following years of the war of the length of which he does not distinctly recollect, in consequence of his impaired memory, that this deponent recollects serving as a private under Capt. Ross as above stated in A.D. One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty by the circumstance of his being wounded and also from the circumstance of the sound between Staten Island and Woodbridge being frozen over and the ice so strong as to enable the British troops and Tories to pass from said Island to Woodbridge, that the freezing of the sound in the manner described was an uncommon occurrence.
s/ John Mirex (X - his mark)

Sworn and subscribed by the said John Mirex making his mark this 25th day of January 1853 before me. 
s/ Alanson Newton, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County aforesaid.
Page 44

I certify that I am personally acquainted with John Mirex, a witness who has testified in the case of Levi Mundy, an applicant for a pension and am satisfied that he is a worthy upright person whose integrity and veracity and undoubted and that I have no hesitation in saying that I believe his testimony in Mundy's case is reliable and true.
s/ Alanson Newton, Judge as aforesaid.
Page 45

Senate Chamber
Jan. 29, 1853

Dr Sir:

Enclosed I send you at the request of Col. Jno. S. Pollard several pieces of additional evidence in the case of Levi Monday, an applicant for a pension. The application was disallowed on account of some discrepancy in the testimony of one of the witnesses; but it seems to be that the case is very fully...
Page 46

...now finished proves that Monday is a pensioner under the laws of New Jersey; and that he did serve under [crossed out: several of] Captain Ross as stated by Sofield, the witness &c., &c.

Will you be good enough to cause this case to be reexamined? The papers have been enclosed to me without any directions as to whom report is to be made; but as I have in several other cases and perhaps in this; been in the habit of [illegible] and for him believe for Col. Pollard, you may in his absence direct the reports to be made to me.

Very respectfully yours,
s/ James Cooper

James E. Heath Esq., Com(missioner) of Pensions
Page 47

N. Sargent
(No. 12)
Sep. 23/'53
Page 48

Washington, Sept. 23 1853

L.P. Waldo
Commissioner &c.

I received yesterday, your favor of the 15th in relation to the additional evidence filed in the case of Courtland Kinsey & stating that, "as the witness
is not certified 'credible' his testimony cannot be considered in the case."

The witness is Levi Munday, a Revolutionary Pensioner, whose character for integrity, veracity & respectability is amply establishes & sustained by the highest testimony on file in his own case now before you, & to which you are referred.

Very respectfully,
s/ N Sargent
Page 49

(No. 11)
April 3/'53
Page 50

Pottsville. Apr. 3, 1853.

D(ear) Sir:

Your favor was duly received. The additional or supplemental evidence in the case of Levi Munday was filed by Geo. S. Pollard, Esq., whom I accompanied to the office at the time, somewhere about the last of February 1853. When the original application was filed, I do not remember; but I feel quite confident it was near of year ago. The application was for revolutionary services.

I have twice seen the papers since they were filed; and I recollect stating my reasons on one occasion why I thought the evidence was sufficient to require the allowance of the claim.

Yours respectfully & truly,
s/ James Cooper

March 7, Tabitha, wid(ow) of Merrick Marting

S. Cole, Esquire, Acting Com(missioner) of Pensions
Page 51

Pension Office,
Dec. 24, 1853

Gentlemen:

I have read your communication of the 19th. inst(ant) relative to the claim for an increase of the pension of Levi Monday of New Jersey, under the Act of June 7 1832; and you are informed that the letter from this office of the 21st of October last, which you have so courteously criticized; was written by myself, after a most careful and thorough revision of the testimony, a duty which I performed, not in the expectation that it would lead to the discovery of any errors of fact or inference committed by the very intelligent gentlemen who had previously examined the case, but as an act of personal courtesy to Mr. Sergeant. I therefore, and not my "over anxious subordinates" am responsible for the [illegible]; (not [illegible]) and ignorances, which...
Page 52

...you think characterize it, and have provoked your "insinuations" against the gentlemen associated with me."

We would, therefore, answer no good purpose if I should give the case another and "intelligent" examination and especially as your argument or statement, has not charged my opinion in any particular as to its merits, or rather dements.

Permit me, in all due courtesy, to remind you that as the head of this office, I alone am responsible for all public communications which bear my signature and that I regard any imputations upon my "subordinates" as a gross violation of official comity, for which there is no justifiable excuse or defense. For those gentlemen are necessarily precluded from their position from entering upon their indication, even admitting that their assailants were deemed worthy of reply. If they were not thus precluded, there are few issues which could arise between them and interested parties who assail them for the faithful discharge of their...
Page 53

... official duties in which I would not willingly trust them in the full conviction that they would ably indicate my high opinion of their intelligence
and integrity.

Respectfully your obe(dient) ser(vant),
Commissioner of Pensions

Messrs. J.S. Pollard & Co., present.
Page 54

"An act to raise by voluntary enlistment, eight hundred and twenty men for the defense of the frontiers of this State."

Section 1: Be it therefore enacted by the Council and General Assembly of this State and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, that eight hundred and twenty men shall be raised by voluntary enlistment and embodied for the defense of the frontiers of this State to continue in service until the first day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty two, unless sooner discharged, and to be stationed in the several Counties in such a manner as to afford the most equal and beneficial protection to all the inhabitants on the said frontiers and that the said eight hundred and twenty men
be distributed and stationed in the different Counties as follows. That is to say *****.

In the County of Middlesex on the north side of Raritan River, eighty six men, including three commissioned officers, four sergeants and four corporals, one drummer and for horsemen, to be raised and commanded by Captain Matthew Freeman, Lieut. James Dunn and Ensign Asher Fitz Randolph of the said County &c.

Passed at Trenton, December 26, 1780
Page 55

State of New Jersey//

I, Thomas S. Allison, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true extract from a law passed by the Legislature of said State, December 26, 1780, as taken from and compared with the original on file in my office.

In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Seal of Office at Trenton this Twenty eighth day of July Eighteen Hundred and Fifty five.
s/ Thomas S. Allison, Secretary of State
Page 56

There was an act of the Legislature of New Jersey passed December 29th 1781, which provides for raising by voluntary enlistment 422 men, to be mustered by the first of March and continue in same until the fifteenth of December, 1782. In the distribution of these men, (who were militia) there was in the County of Middlesex on the north side of the Raritan River, one company of 24 Privates, 2 Commissioned Officers, 2 Sergeants, One Corporal and one Horseman to be raised and commanded by Captain Asher Fitz Randolph and Ensign Lewis Fitz Randolph of the said County.

For the above, see "Laws of New Jersey by Peter Wilson, A.M., Trenton, 1786, by authority Chapter ccc, page 251, where it will be seen in a footnote that these men were raised and served more than the time specified in the law, which was nine and a half months.
s/ James L. Street., Atty., New Brunswick, N.J.
Page 57

March 8, 1853
Mar. 1830

Argument in case of Levi Munday.

Levi Munday

(No. 19)

Hon. Jas Cooper, U.S. Senate

Hon. Jas Cooper, Elizabeth (N.J.)
Page 58

The case of Levi Mundy, an applicant for a pension was filed in April 1852.

1. It was first rejected in consequence a discrepancy between the affidavit of a witness in the case by the name of Sofield and the statement in his own
case made some years before.

2. A supplementary, or rather explanatory affidavit was procured from Sofield, by which he explained the reasons of the discrepancy. This was still considered insufficient to authorize the allowance of the claim.

3. The applicant afterwards was informed of the existence of an old fellow soldier by the name of Minex, whose affidavit was procured, confirming in several important particulars the statements of Mundy and the affidavits of Sofield. This taken in connection with the certificate of the Secretary of State of New Jersey, I cannot that regard as sufficient to make out Mundy's case.
Page 59

...This case was filed in April last, [crossted out: that] in consequence of the insufficiency of proof was disallowed. Sometime since I filed, at the request of Mr. Jno. S. Pollard, certain supplemental proof confirmatory of the statement of the applicant and the affidavit of Sofield.

The application of Mundy was not rejected in consequence of insufficiency of proof, but of discrepancies between this affidavit and of a witness and a former statement made when he filed his own application.

With all due deference to the views of the gentlemen who examined the case, I am compelled to say that the discrepancy between Sofield's affidavit and his statement, made some years before, are not of the character which according to the rules of evidence discredit a witness. If he had sworn to [illegible]facts that would rightfully discredit him. But when he did no more than swear to cumulatively or to more the last time than he did the first, it does not and ought not to discredit, especially when his veracity and good character are testified...
Page 60

...to by a number of respectable people. 

But in addition to this, and without advising to this view of the case at all, the affidavit of Minex confirms Sofield in one of the points in which the discrepancy [crosse out: [illegible])

Now, the rule of law is quite plain that when a man swears positively to a number of facts, and he is corroborated in the main ones, the presumption of law is, that he has sworn truly as to all. This rule prevails universally in Courts of Justice; and of course the same rule prevails here.

Whatever difficulty, therefore, may have heretofore existed, is removed by the affidavit of Minex; which confirms the witness in an important and vital point of his testimony. Applying to this case the [crossed out: (illegible)] understood rule of law, above referred to; there can remain, it seems to [crossed out: (illegible)]. 

s/ James Cooper
Page 61

Washington, July 7, 1852.

James E. Heath, Esq.
Com(missioner) of Pensions

Sir,

On the 4th of February last you informed me that the application of Levi Munday for a pension had been disallowed. The ground of disallowance was a discrepancy, that was supposed to exist between the proof of service, made by Joseph Sofield the witness, and the facts which he had previously set forth in his own application for a pension in Dec 1832. You say in your letter of the above named date that, "the claimant asserts that in April 1780, he entered the service under Capt. Ross and served 5 continuous months, rendering in subsequent years enough service to amount to 26 months. The witness swears that he performed this service in the same companies and at the same time with the claimant. But on referring to Sofield's declaration, I find that he claimed to have served 6 months in 1780 in monthly tours, 3 months under Capt. Manning and 3 under Capt. Dunn, while his memory was so decayed that he could not particularize any tours he afterwards performed."
Page 62

...I transmit you herewith at the request of Maj. Pollard, the agent of the applicant, an affidavit supplemental to his original deposition in which he reiterates in positive terms, "that Levi Munday served full two years;" that, "he was enrolled in 1777 and continued in the service most of the time until the close of the revolution." Unless the witness swears willfully to a falsehood, there is no room left for doubt that the applicant served for the term of two years.

Personally, I know nothing of either the applicant or witness; but the character of both for integrity and veracity is sustained by gentlemen of the highest character for intelligence and worth. Accompanying this affidavit of the witness, Sofield, in the certificate of the President and Associate Justices of the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Middlesex, N.J., to his character for integrity and veracity. The Honorable Geo. H. Brown, the present representative of the Middlesex district in Congress, testifies to the intelligence, integrity and worth of the Judge.

The Honorable James Parker, formerly representing the district in Congress, testifies to Sofield's character at the time of filing his application 20 years ago. There can hardly exist a doubt of Sofield [crossed out: (illegible)] for integrity and veracity; and if this be...
Page 63

...established the case is made out. I repeat, that the witness is either guilty of perjury, or Munday served for a period of at least two years.

But a word as to the character of the discrepancy between Sofield's testimony in Munday's case and his statement in his own. It is not of the kind, indicating necessarily a disposition to swear falsely, or such a state of memory as to render facts distinctly sworn to, suspected. It is not necessarily inconsistent in any part. He may not have remembered, at the moment of making his own declaration, that in the year 1780, he served under any other capts.
than Manning & Dunn, yet he may have served under Capt. Ross, especially as he says, "he served most of the time from 1777 to the close of the war of the revolution." In his application (in that made and sworn to July 13, 1833 before Peter R. Ranyon) he states that he served a much longer time than explained for, but that he could not specify it particularly, nor remember the officers under whom particular towns were performed. It is not at all an uncommon thing for a fact to escape from the memory for a season, and return and be remembered more vividly thereafter. Nor would it occur to any one as a very strange thing, that Sofield when his mind was called back by the act of 1832 to the facts of a very remote period, should have forgotten many things, that dwelling upon, he...
Page 64

...should afterwards remember distinctly. It is at any rate, when his character for integrity and veracity is taken into consideration a much more probable hypothesis than that he would be guilty of perjury.

Will you be good enough to cause the case to be examined, in connection with the additional testimony and have a report made upon it as early as is convenient?

Yours with great respect,
s/ James Coper

(No. 7)

There is a certificate from the Secretary of State of New Jersey showing Capt. Ross' service and that there is no muster rolls &c. &c.
Page 65

(No. 5)
June 28/'52
Page 66

We the subscribers certify that we are personally acquainted with Joseph Sofield, a resident of the township of Woodbridge in the County of Middlesex and State of New Jersey. That he has resided there as we believe, from his childhood, to the present time. That he is a pensioner of the United States. That his character for truth and veracity is undoubted and is so considered by his acquaintances.

Woodbridge, 28th June 1852.

Judges of Middlesex Pleas:
s/ Eagar Furman
s/ Peter R. Ranyon
s/ Lewis Fitz Randolph
s/ Alanson Newton

The Judges of the Court of Common Pleas of Middlesex County, New Jersey maintain a high character for intelligence & integrity. I know personally Judges Furman, Ranyon...
Page 67

...& Randolph & Newton, them to truth & being in past reliable men.

Their certificate as to character [crossed out: will] would be conclusive with me.
s/ Geo. H. Brown, Rep(resentative) 4th Dis(trict) N.J.
Page 68

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

Levi Mundy, a resident of the Township of Piscataway in the County and State aforesaid, being first duly sworn according to law on his oath saith that he is an applicant for a pension under the Act of Congress passed A.D. 1832. That the reasons why did not make application [crossed out: sooner] at an earlier day was that he understood that none were entitled to pensions under the former laws but those who rendered service in the regular services of the United States, and who enlisted during the War of the Revolution, that while he was able to labor he could support himself and family without difficulty, and felt happy in the enjoyment of that liberty for which he had fought. That since he has been unable, through infirmity to support himself, he has thought proper to apply to the department for a pension. That he never heard of the pension law of 1832 until a short time prior to his application for a pension. That he has not for many years past mingled much with society.
s/ Levi Mundy

Sworn to and subscribed this 15th day of July 1852 before me.
s/ Alanson Newton, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County aforesaid.
Page 69

This paper contains several additional evidence in relation to the claim of Levi Mundy for a pension. Please file it and have the case examined as early as possible.

It from [crossed out: (illegible)] his testimony of this [crossed out: (illegible)].


s/ James Cooper, [crossed out: (illegible)] 

(No. 8)
Page 70

(No. 4)
June 28/'52
Page 71

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

Joseph Sofield, a resident of the Township of Woodbridge in the County and State aforesaid, being first duly sworn according to law on his oath saith, that he makes the following affidavit as supplemental to his former one in, the case of Levi Mundy's application for a pension. That this deponent did serve under Capt. Robert Ross as well as under Capts. Manning and Dunn. That he also served under Capts. Freeman, Seabring and Ford. That this deponent was enrolled in the year 1777 and continued in the service most of the time, until the close of the War of the Revolution. That the orders from the captains to the soldiers were to hold themselves in readiness to march at a moment's warning; That it was frequently the case that persons who entered the service under one captain would serve for a short time under a different (one). Capts. Ross, Manning and Dunn's companies were located in the same section of the County and often served together. That this deponent, in his own application for a pension, specified such tours of service as he could most readily prove. That this deponent after due reflection is satisfied that Levi Mundy served full two years during the War of the Revolution. This deponent
further saith that he was actually in the service in the year (1782) Seventeen Hundred and Eighty two. That it is a fact well known by all the surviving patriots of the Revolution that the services of all the men and boys capable of bearing arms were frequently required to protect the inhabitant living on the Staten Island Sound and Raritan River.

Sworn to and subscribed...
Page 72

...this 28th day of June 1852 before me.
s/ Alanson Newton, one of the Judge of Middlesex (Court of Common) Pleas.

s/ James Sofield (X - his mark)

Witness present:
s/ Anne Mundy
Page 73

Merrick Martin, in his declaration states that this [crossed out: service of] it was necessary for every man & boy that were able to bear arms to take an active part in the Rev(olutionary) struggle, who lived in the vicinity of the enemy, namely Perth Amboy, Woodbridge, Rahway & Elizabeth Town, in order to hold them & the refugees in check.

In the same case, Thos. Bloomfield states that the people of the same neighborhood were being much annoyed during the war by the British troops & Tories & it frequently required the assistance of everyone that could use a musket to repel the attacks of the enemy.

In a letter from Mr. Cooper to Mr. Edwards in this case, he says, "If the applicant was entitled to credit at all, he was entitled to full credit, unless corroborated in part & contradicted in part. This is a well established rule of evidence commending itself to common sense as well as judicial sense. But in this case the corroborating evidence is general, going to the whole, sustaining every part of it fully... Same of them, too, corroborate the applicant specifically by testifying to the part that such tours of service as he refers to, were really performed,"
Page 74

...This is precisely the fact in reference to the case of Levi Munday. Sofield corroborates almost every fact stated by him in regard to his tours of service & Mr. Sofield's character for veracity & integrity is fully & amply sustained; he was in truth a most estimable & respectable man.

By a special act, N.J, gave Mr. Martin 60$ a year, same as L. Munday.

Act of Jan. 8th 1781, Wilson's Laws of N.J., P.P. 172 & 173, Sec. 24, requires the Capt. or commanding officer of any company to call out his company to oppose invaders or insurgents, at any times when necessary, without waiting for orders. See also Sections 25 & 26, Page 251, Act of Dec 9th 1781, provides for calling out militia in certain Counties to serve from April to 15th Dec. 1782. Middlesex Co., to which Munday belonged, is one of the counties specified in the act...
Page 75

...This is precisely the fact in reference to the case of Levi Munday. Sofield corroborates almost every fact stated by him in regard to his tours of service & Mr. Sofield's character for veracity & integrity is fully & amply sustained; he was in truth a most estimable & respectable man.

By a special act, N.J, gave Mr. Martin 60$ a year, same as L. Munday.

Act of Jan. 8th 1781, Wilson's Laws of N.J., P.P. 172 & 173, Sec. 24, requires the Capt. or commanding officer of any company to call out his company to oppose invaders or insurgents, at any times when necessary, without waiting for orders. See also Sections 25 & 26, Page 251, Act of Dec 9th 1781, provides for calling out militia in certain Counties to serve from April to 15th Dec. 1782. Middlesex Co., to which Munday belonged, is one of the counties specified in the act...
Page 76

Notes given by the Commissioners of the several Counties of the State of New Jersey for Militia service during the Revolutionary War.

NO. OF CERTIF. | DATE. | SIGNED BY. | PAYABLE TO | AMOUNT.
275 | June 8. 1784 | Thomson Stelle | Robert Ross | £28.17.4


STATE OF NEW JERSEY:

I, CHARLES G. McCHESNEY, Secretary of state of the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify, that the foregoing is a true abstract from a Book, headed as above, as taken from, and compared with the original now remaining in my office.-

And I do further certify, that Thomson Stelle was, by an Act passed by the Legislature of this State, December 20, 1783, entitled, "An Act to procure an estimate of the sums due to the Militia and Troops who have been raised for the defence of the frontiers of the State, and to provide for the settlement of the same," appointed a Commissioner for the County of Middlesex for the purpose of settling and adjusting the Pay-rolls of the Militia and Troops of this State, as aforesaid, and also for signing and delivering out to each and every person a note for the payment of what may be justly due.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my seal of office, at Trenton, in said State, this twenty ninth day of June A.D. one thousand eight hundred and fifty two.

Thos. S. Allison, Secretary of State.
Page 77

An act for the relief of Levi Mundy.
(No. 9)
Jun. 9/'52
Page 78

State of New Jersey

An Act for the relief of Levi Mundy of the County of Middlesex.

Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of
New Jersey. That the treasurer of this State is authorized and empowered to pay to Levi Mundy of the County of Middlesex, a Soldier of the Revolutionary War, or his order, the sum of Sixty dollars per annum, during his natural life, in semi annual payments of Thirty dollars each, the first payment to be made on the first day of March next, and the receipt of the said Levi Mundy or his order shall be sufficient voucher to the Treasurer in the settlement of his accounts.

Approved February 12, 1851

State of New Jersey

I, Thomas S. Allison, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an act passed by the Legislature of said State and approved by the Governor, February 12, 1851, as taken from and compared with the original on file in my office.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office at Trenton this twenty ninth day of November Eighteen hundred and fifty two.

s/ Thos. S. Allison, Secretary of State
Page 79

Dec. 7/'53
(No. 13)
Page 80

State of New Jersey
Middlesex County//

Levi Mundy, a resident of the Township of Piscataway in the County and State aforesaid, being first duly sworn according to law, on his oath saith that he is an applicant for a pension, under the Act of Congress passed A.D. 1832. That the reasons why he did not make application at an earlier day are, that he understood that none were entitled to pensions under the former laws, but those who rendered service in the regular service of the United States, and who enlisted during the War of the Revolution. That while he was able to labor he could support himself and family without difficulty and feels happy in the enjoyment of that liberty for which he had fought. That since he has been unable, through infirmity to support himself, he has thought proper to apply to the department for a pension. That he never heard of the pension law of 1832 until a short time prior to his application for a pension. That he has not for many years past mingled much with society.

Signed, Levi Mundy

Sworn to and subscribed this 15th day of July 1852 before me, Alanson Newton, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County aforesaid.
s/ Alanson Newton, Judge as aforesaid.

The foregoing copy of the affidavit of Levi Mundy, the original of which is now on file in the Pension...
Page 81

...Office at Washington City, as one of the papers in support of the claim of said Mundy to a pension, was duly sworn to and subscribed before me, but by some unaccountable inadvertence was omitted at the time to be attested by my signature.

Woodbridge, Dec 7 1853.

Alanson Newton, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the County of Middlesex and State New Jersey.
Page 82

26 mos. exclusive of services as Minuteman, 3 mos.

Synopsis of testimony in case of Levi Mundy on file in Pension Office.
Page 83

Levi Mundy, for increase, {Act 7 June 1832.}

Pensioner declares he entered as a vol(unteer) in company commanded by Capt. Robt Ross in reg(iment) of Militia commanded by Col. Moses Jaques on or about 1 April 1780 & so continued until 1 Sep., 5 mos. in fall of 1780 & winter of 1780 & 81. Capt. Ross' company was frequently called out for the purpose of protecting the residents on the (Staten Island) Sound & Raritan (River) & in this service was engaged 3 mos. On 1st March 1781 again cont(inued) the service under Capt. Ross & so continued until Nov. 8, 9 mos.

That during the winter of 1781 & 2 served as a Minuteman, again entered under Capt. Ross 1 April 1782 & so continued until 1 Dec. following, 8 mos. during which he was present with a party of men of Capt. Ross' co. near Crows Mills, on the Raritan (River), where a British foraging party attempted to drive away Maj. Potter's Milch Cows [i.e. Dairy Cows] & assisted to retake them. Again ent(ered) under Capt. Ross on 1st March 1783 & continued until 1 May following, 2 mos. = 26 mos. exclusive of service as Minuteman. Was in numerous skirmishes during s(aid) time with British foraging parties infesting the country bordering on Staten Island Sound & Raritan River. Now receives a pension from State of N. Jersey at the rate of $60.~ per annum, the highest rate
allowed by that State to Privates of the Revo(lutionary War); On 12 Feb. last by Special Act of Legislature & certified copy of which is on file in
Pension Office.

Jos. Sofield (a Pensioner) knew Levi Mundy & entered the service with Mundy at the time named in his declaration & served as Minuteman & vol(unteer) in Capt. Ross' company. That he & Mundy performed the same tours of service as claimed by Munday in his declaration and testifies to Munday's good character on 18 April 1851.

Mulford Wilson of Piscataway Township, Middlesex Co., aged Sixty six years, swears to the good character of L. Mundy & to his reputation as a Rev(olutionary) Soldier in the neighborhoods & has himself known him as such from his (Wilson's) childhood.

Isaac Stelle of same township & Co., 61 yrs. of age, corroborates [crossed out: Sofield's] Wilson's statement.

Hon. Jas. Parker, ex-mem(ber of) Con(gress), certifies to Munday's good character & destitute circumstances.
Page 84

Alanson Newton, one of the Judges of the Court of (blank) certifies to the credibility of Jos. Sofield, Mulford Wilson, Isaac Stelle & Hon. Jas. Parker, witnesses to Mundy's claim.

X

On 28 June 1852, Jos. Sofield again testifies, supplemental to his first affidavit. That he, Sofield, served under Capts. Ross, Manning & Dunn; also, Capts. Freeman, Seabring & Ford. Was enrolled in 1777 & continued in the service most of the time (until) the close of the Revo(lution). That the orders of the cap(tains) were to be ready to march at any moment. That it frequently happened that men who entered under one capt(ain) would serve for a short time under a different capt(ain).  Capts. Ross, Manning & Dunn's comp(any) were located in the same section of the Country & often served together. That in his own application he specified such tours as he could most readily prove. That after mature reflection, is satisfied that Levi Mundy served full 2 years during the Revo(lutionary) War, was himself in actuality in service in the year 1782.

X

Levi Munday, on 15 July 1852, states that the reason why he did not make claim before was his want of knowledge that he was entitled, having been led to believe that only such as belonged to the regular army were so entitled.

On 25 Jan./'53 Jno. Minex (eighty eight years) swears he was a soldier during the latter part of the Revo(lutionary) War, that he was acquainted with Capt. Mathew Freeman, Capts. Ross and Manning & several others. That he served under both the first named Capts. Freeman & Ross, that he personally knew Levi Munday, a Private in Capt. Ross's company & served with him in s(aid) company one tour in 1780. Thinks the length of tour was five months - also, some other tours in the following years of the war - length of time not recollected - but recollects this tour he does remember from being wounded [crossed out: &c],. the freezing of the (Staten Island) Sound &c.
Page 85

Judges Edgar Freeman, Peter P. Runyon & D. Fitz Randolph, Judges of the Court of Pleas of Middlesex Co. certify that Sofield has resided in Woodbridge Township all his life as they believe, & that his character for truth & veracity is undoubted & so considered by his acquaintances. 

Hon. Geo. H. Brown, Rep(resentative) 4th Dist(rict) N.J., certifies to the character of said Judges.

1. Abstract of Muster Roll, N.J. troops in Middlesex & Essex Counties, showing the several amts. p(ai)d to Capt. Ross [crossed out: in 779] Viz.: 31 July /'79 £245.5.3. 19 Aug./'79 £329.2.6, under seal, Sec. of State N.J.

2. Abstract of payment to Capt. Ross on 8 June 1784 of £28.17.4. - also under seal as above.
Page 86

(No. 2)
March 24/'51
Page 87

Hon Jas. E. Heath

Dear Sir,

Enclosed I send you the declaration of Levi Mundy with the accompanying affidavits. I consider it a case clearly made out and I entertain the hope, that a decision will be made upon it, without delay.

More particularly, as the Mundy is an aged man, very infirm and has not in all human probability, long to remain in this world.

Very respectfully your obe(dient) ser(vant),
s/ Alanson Newton

Woodridge, 24 April 1857.
Page 88

Washington City
August 27th 1855.

Sir:

Herewith you will find enclosed additional evidence in support of the Revolutionary pension claim of Levi Munday of N. Jersey. This claim has recently been before the Sec. of the Interior on appeal, but returned by him to your office within a few days.

We respectfully request a re-examination of this case in connection with the testimony now presented.

Very respectfully your obe(dient) ser(vant),
s/ J.S. Pollard &c.

Hon: J. Minot, Com(missioner) of Pensions
Page 89

J.S. Pollard & Company
August 23, 1855
Washington, D.C.

Asking (for) a re-examination of the claim of Levi Munday upon additional testimony.

Let it be atten(tioned) to Com(missioner of) Pensions with the add'l testimony.
Aug. 25/'53
s/ Cole

Respectfully referred to the Commissioner of Pensions for examination, upon the additional evidence filed in his office.
s/ Chas. S. Frank, Acting Co. Clk.

Dep(osed) Aug. 25/'53

W. Pritchett, 23 Aug. 1855
Page 90

Washington City
August 23rd 1855

Sir,

Having been recently furnished with new and important testimony in support of the Revolutionary pension claim of Levi Munday of New Jersey, we desire that the papers in that case now on file in your office, on our appeal, may be returned to the Pension Office, for a reexamination of the claim, in connection with said additional testimony.

Very respectfully your obe(dient) ser(vant),
s/ J.S. Pollard &c.

Hon. Robert McLelland, Sec. of the Interior.
Page 91

Remarks upon the applications of Levi Munday & Courtland Kinsey

(No. 16)

Sep. 9, 1853
N. Sargent
Page 92

In submitting the applications of Levi Munday and Courtland Kinsey, both of Woodbridge N.J., for pensions for revolutionary services, I wish to call the attention of the Commission to some facts & circumstances which, it seems to me, have a bearing, or should have, upon these cases.

It is a well known fact that Lord Howe, the Commander of the British Army, established his headquarters on the Heights of Staten Island, which overlooks a very considerable extent of country, including the Township of Woodbridge, the residences of the two aged applicants. That he held this position until April 1783, being separated from New Jersey only by a narrow channel of water called The Sound, which was in 1780-81 frozen over and passable for large teams & heavy artillery. Hence, it became necessary for the people living on that frontier, and in such proximity to the enemy, to be always on the alert, as they were constantly subject to alarm and annoyance by the British & their more dangerous & inveterate enemies, the Tories of their own state. The families of both these applicants suffered many privations, and were special objects of revenge in consequence of their firm adhesion & patriotic devotion to the American cause. That of Kinsey were robbed & plundered, & had their house & barn burned to the ground & the last cow they possessed, with two fat hogs, driven off in Dec. 1780, the family escaping to the woods without clothing to...
Page 93

...protect them from the severe cold of that memorable [crossed out: year] season.

The father of the said Kinsey, it appears by papers in the State Department, devoted his whole time during the last six years of the war, to the defense of his country & his neighbors, not having performed a month's labor on his little farm during all that time; the son, meantime catching the spirit & emulating the example of the father.

The following annotate, illustrative of the conditions of this section of the country, & the spirit of the "rebels," is not only current in the neighborhood as traditionary history, but is somewhere recorded as an authenticated fact; it occurred about the year 1782. A [crossed out: mercenary] marauding party of Hessians & Tories were passing through the neighborhood where the Kinsey's resided, plundering every house belonging to a "rebel". The
place being thickly settled, the party became separated. At length, the main body having moved on, an elder sister of the applicant, Kinsey, creeping from her hiding place found a Hessian very deliberately helping himself. Being unobserved, she seized [crossed out: the] his gun & threatened his life if he attempted to escape. She then sent a small child for her brother, the applicant, who came & marched him off to the quarters of Col. Asher F. Randolph, to whose company he belonged. It may as well be mentioned that such was the state of things in that locality, that no man was...
Page 94

...allowed to fire a gun except as an alarm, for several years, & at the discharge of a gun everyone, man & boy, able to bear a musket, was bound to assemble at the place of alarm, ready for action.

Hence, it was that much of the service that was rendered or performed, was [crossed out: done] performed without a special enrollment or order. They were all Minutemen in that township & often called into service by alarm guns, instead of orders from their officers. Upon this subject, see the State Laws of New Jersey, a memorandum of which will be found among the papers in both cases.

In the cases of Munday and Kinsey, the persons who performed the services, are themselves living, though very aged, and are holding out their attenuated hands for that relief which Congress, in a spirit of liberal justice, promised to those who so bravely & patriotically defended their liberties, & to their widows & children; will that small pittance be withheld from these men now tattering on the brink of the grave? I trust not, but that the Commissioner will take into consideration the very great difficulty of now proving, by living testimony, the services performed - both the comrades of these two applicants, by whom their services are proved, being dead & nearly all [crossed out: if not all] their companions having gone down to the tomb, only a few of the patriots of that day...
Page 95

...being left, "Rari nantes in vasto gurgite [a.k.a gurgite vasto]" [Latin phrase meaning, "few are swimming in the vast"]. They were "good men & true" in the days that tried their integrity, patriotism, courage, fortitude & fidelity, why should not their own statements sustained by their departed comrades, now be accredited?
s/ N. Sargent

Remarks upon the applications of Levi Munday & Courtland Kinsey.

(No. 16)

Sep. 9, 1853
N. Sargent