Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 17482, for Nathaniel Pomroy, Connecticut

SERVICE
NUMBER
loan
Pomroy Nathaniel Martha
N 17482
CONTENTS

5.338
Connecticut. Martha Denny, dec'd. widow of Nathaniz C., who died on the 17 th May 1831 of [illegible] in the State of [illegible] who was a Captain in the [illegible] commanded by Captain [illegible] of the [illegible] commanded by [illegible] in the [illegible] Deducting former payments under line for act 7 th July 1835.
Inscribed on the Roll of [illegible] at the rate of 128 Dollars 80 Cents per annum, to commence on the 17 th day of May 1831. and ending Jan'y. 16. 1840.
Certificate of Pension issued the 23 rd day of July 1835. and sent to [illegible] Arrears to the 4 th of [illegible] Semi-annual allowance ending [illegible]
{ Revolutionary Claim, Act July 4, 1836, Section the }
Recorded by [illegible] Clerk, Book [illegible] Vol. [illegible] Page 113.

No 8,024.
Martha Pomroy dec d Widow of Nathaniel Connecticut
Act July 4 1836

State of Connecticut } County of Hartford }
Clarks Office Hartford Dec 27 th 1853
I, Wm H Eaton Clerk of the County Court
In Hartford County, Keeper of the Seal thereof and of the Commission of Justices of the Peace for said County hereby certify that Daniel H. Norton Esq was on the 1 st Monday of April 1852 duly elected a Justice of the Peace for said County for the term of two years From the 4 th day of July 1852, that he has been duly sworn & is qualified by the laws of this State to take acknowledgment of deeds & administer oaths and the within Official Signatures annexed to the papers hereto attached and purporting to be his, are his genuine Official Signatures
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my name & affixed the seal of said Court this 27 th day of December A.D. 1853
Wm H Eaton Clerk

State of Connecticut County of Hartford p.
On this 15 th day of Nov. A. D. 1853, personally appeared be- fore me George Williton, Judge of the Court of Probate within and for the Dis- trict of Suffield in said County of Hart- ford. Martha Chaplin and Henrietta Kath- eway, who first being duly sworn accord- ing to law, do on their oaths make the fol- lowing declaration, in order to obtain the pension, or arrears of pension due them as heirs at law of Martha Pomeroy, late of said Suffield deceased, under the act of 4 th July 1836, or the act of July 7 th 1838.
That they are the only children now surviving of said Martha Pomeroy, who was the widow of Nathaniel Pomeroy, who served in the Revolutionary War as follows - viz: At New London and also (prob- ably) in the campaign and at the bat- tles near New York in September and the fall of 1776 - from the 10 th of June 1776 to the 3 d of January 1777, as a first lieutenant in Capt. Abiel (or Abel) Pease's Company, in Col. Erastus Wolcott's Reg- iment of selected troops, raised by the

General Assembly of Connecticut May Session 1776. to serve as coast-guards.
And also in August and September of the year 1778 as a captain in Col. Samuel Chebrians Regiment during the Expedition to Rhode Island under Gen. Sal- livan for (probably) two months -
And also in various other tours of mil- itary service with respect to which the declarants cannot speak with certainty being ignorant of and having no reliable means of ascertaining the length of time the country visited the names of the Superior officers or the numbers of the companies or regiments -
That (with respect to the first term of service above described) the General As- sembly of Connecticut at their May Session of 1776 ordered two regiments to be raised by voluntary enlistment, for the defence of the colony to be stationed as coast guards at or near Haven and New London and to be held in service until the first day of January 1777 unless sooner discharged, and to be sub- ject to join the continental army if so ordered by the Governor. That David

Watbury jr was appointed Colonel of the 1 st of these regiments and that Capt. Abiel Pease of Somers was appointed a captain of a company in this regiment and Thomas Abby of Enfield a lieutenant in said Pease's company. That at the June Session of the General Assembly Col. Erastus Wolcott was appointed Colonel of said regiment in place of David Watbury jr and Lt. Col. Sam l Mott as Lieut. Col. in the place of Comfort Sage. That at said June Session 1776 in compliance with a requisition of the continental Congress the General Assembly of Connecticut ordered to be raised and there were accordingly raised by voluntary enlistment and to join and reinforce the Continental Army in the northern department in Canada two battalions of troops to be enlisted and holden in service until the 1 st day of December 1776. of the second company of the first of which battalions so enlisted and raised the following persons all of Suffield aforesaid were appointed the commissioned officers viz. John Harman jr captain, Benjamin Harman jr 1 st Lieut.

Nathaniel Pomroy 2 d Lieut and Joel Adams Ensign.
That at the said June Session it was ordered by the said General Assembly that the officer's commissions appointed at the previous May Session should bear date the 10 th day of June 1776 and the officer's commissions appointed at the said June Session should bear date June 20 th 1776.
That at the said June Session 1776 the said General Assembly authorized the said Nathaniel Pomroy and the said Thomas Abby to exchange with each other and accordingly appointed the said Nathaniel Pomroy to be a first lieutenant in the said Capt. Abiel (or Abel) Pease's Company in Col. Erastus Wolcott's Regiment.
That about the 1 st of Sept 1776 a part of Col. Erastus Wolcott's Regiment was raised and went to join the continental army near New York under the command of Col. Saltonstall.
They further declare that the said Martha Pomroy their mother aforesaid was married to the said Nathaniel

Pomroy on or about the month of February A.D. 1777 and that he died on the 17 th day of May 1831 leaving the said Martha his widow who died without having married again on the 16 th day of January 1840 - leaving the following named children surviving her who were her only surviving chil- dren at the time of her death. viz: Ma- thaniel Pomroy - Martha, wife of Ebe- nezer Chaplin and Henrietta wife of Robert Hatherway
Martha Chaplin Henrietta Hatherway
Signed in presence of Baths, Gearing Daniel W. Norton.
Sworn to and subscribed before me the date above written.
Geo Williston Judge of Probate for Suffield District
State of Connecticut County of Hartford p. Probate District of Suffield - It is hereby certified that sat- isfactory evidence has been exhibited before

me George Williston Judge of the Court of Probate within and for the said dis- trict of Suffield that Martha Pomroy widow of Capt. Nathaniel Pomroy for- merly of this town a reputed revolutionary soldier died on the 16 th day of January 1840 - and that her only surviving chil- dren at the time of her death were Martha Chaplin wife of Ebenezer Chaplin of said Suffield - Henrietta Hatheway wife of Robert Hatheway of this town - and Na- thaniel Pomroy, now deceased, late of this town. The witnesses testifying to the same are Luther Loomis, Sarah Hale, Daniel W. Norton, Robert Hath- eway Martha Chaplin and Henrietta Hatheway and I further certify, that I am well acquainted with each and all of them and with their reputation for truth and veracity and that they are all and worthy of credit.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of said Court of Probate this 15 th day of November A. D. 1853.
Geo. W. Williston Judge of Probate for Suffield District

We Luther Loomis & Daniel W. Norton of Suffield County of Hartford and State of Con- necticut, being each duly sworn, depose and say that we are each of us personally acquainted with Martha Chaplin and Henrietta Hall- away of said Suffield the subscribers of the foregoing declaration, that they have always been reputed to be the children of Capt. Nathaniel and Mrs. Martha Loomis his wife - that in our presence they subscribed the foregoing declarations and that we signed our names thereto in attestation of the same as thereby appears.
Luther Loomis Daniel W. Norton.
The foregoing deposition was subscribed and sworn to before me on the 15 th day of November 1853. And I hereby cer- tify that I am well acquainted with said deponents who were also the attesting witnesses to the foregoing declarations and that they are fully entitled to credit.
Geo. W. Histon Judge of Probate for Suffield District

I Daniel W Norton of Suffield in the County Hartford & State of Connecticut, being duly sworn depose and say.
That I am well acquainted with Albert King of this town, and that his reputation for truth and veracity is good. He is the Grand son of Thaddeus King formerly while living of this town, and resides in the same house in which his grandfather used to live during the revolution- ary war, and up to the time of his death in 1792, as I have been credibly informed.
Some time a year ago last fall having discovered the name of Thaddeus King on a revolutionary pay or muster roll in the Office of the Comptroller of this state at Hartford, and knowing that the widow of the said Thaddeus King, (who was also the widow of Phineas Drake another revolutionary soldier and a pensioner,) had died as recently as 1846.
I suggested to the said Albert King to make a thorough search among his grandfathers papers. He promised to do so, and sometime afterwards, I think in I think in the month of January or Feb- ruary 1852, he informed me that he had found several papers behind or near

chimney, which he would like to have me look at. I saw the papers which he brought in the kitchen, and did not see the place where they were found. They consisted of two account Books containing tax lists of the Town for several years during the war of the revolution; a large number of orders and receipts by soldiers for pay for military services. — a letter from the first wife of the said Thaddeus King to him dated "Feb y 26 th 1776." and directed "To Thaddeus King att Roxbury in the army". — a paper filed and entitled "Minutes from several Pay-Rolls (viz.) Capt. N. Pomeroy, Capt Kings Capt Sheldons Capt Barnards and Lt Nobles."
Another filed and entitled "Pay Rolls of Lt. Nobles Company 1779. in Aug t & Sept N. Haven." and also another filed and entitled "Pay Roll of Capt. Nathl. Pomeroy's Comp y . Rhode Island 1778." The caption of this last named paper is as follows. "Suffield November the 15 th 1779. a Pay Roll of the Bounty and wages."

of Capt Nath l Pomeroy Company in Col l s Samuel Chapmans Reg t of Militia - Marcht to Rhode Island from the State of Connecticut in August 1778. There are 25 names on the roll including Sergeant and corporal - The sum generally carried out against the mens names is £ 6. 6. 8. - The roll is signed "Nath l Pomeroy Capt." in the same hand writing with the body of the paper.
The paper is of ancient make, waterlined yellow and stained - and the same remarks are true of the other papers. - of the genuineness of them all I have no doubt. - I have shown the pay-roll of Capt. Sheldons Company to Dea. Sam l Sheldon whose name is upon it - Dea. Sheldon is the father of the Rev. Horace Sheldon of this town, was the son of Capt. Sheldon under whom he served in the New-Haven alarm. Dea. Sheldon affirmed the roll to be correct, as far as his memory served him.
All of the above named papers have been in my possession ever since, and have never been out of it, until I deposited them

in the Office of the Comptroller of this state at Hartford last summer about the 1 st of August I noticed the name of Capt. Pomeroy at the time, I took the roll but never took any particular notice of the fact until since other testimony was discovered - and an application for a pension talked of by his children. Then I communicated to them the fact of the discovery of the roll, which they did not know before.
I am 54 years of age and recollect Capt. Nathl. Pomeroy - he had the reputation of having been an officer in the revolution, and used to take the lead of the revolutionary soldiers at 4 th of July celebrations. I never heard him say any thing of his services. He was an old man when I was a boy, what his age was I did not know - and I could not have been apt to have talked with him familiarly. In specifying the papers found by Mr. A. King, and delivered to me, I omitted to mention in its proper order, one filed and entitled "Pay Roll of Capt. Shelton's Company July 1779."
Daniel M. Norton
Sworn to and subscribed before me Nov. 15 th 1853 - and I certify that the deponent is a person of good credit & that the deposition is in his own handwriting.
Geo. W. Histon Judge of Probate Suffield Dist. Ct. Geo. W. Histon Judge of Probate for Suffield District

I William L. Loomis Clerk of the Court of Probate for the District of Suffield County of Hartford and State of Connecticut do hereby certify, that George Williston Esq. is the Judge of said Court of Probate duly elected and sworn to serve for one year from after the 21 st day of July, 1853 that I am well acquainted with his hand writing and that I verily believe the three foregoing signatures purport- ing to be his on the papers hereto attached are each & all his genuine official sig- natures.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand & affixed the seal of said Court this 7 th day of December 1853
Wm L. Loomis, Clerk

Know all men that we Martha Chaplin and Henrietta Hathaway of Suffield in the County of Hartford and state of Connecticut hereby constitute and appoint Calvin W. Phelps of said Suffield our true and lawful agent and attorney to prosecute the claim of ourselves for any amount of arrears of rev- olutionary pension that may be due us and we hereby authorize our said agent to examine all papers and doc- uments file in national evidence and arguments and to receive the certifi- cate which may be issued for said claim which we wish to be made payable to ourselves - to appoint substitute - and generally to do all things which we our- selves could lawfully do in the premises - hereby ratifying and confirming all that our said attorney shall lawfully do in the premises -
Witness our hands & seals this 26 th day of July 1853 -
Signed sealed in presence of Wm L. Loomis. Daniel W. Morton.
Martha Chaplin Henrietta Hathaway Robert Hathaway

State of Connecticut County of Hartford p Suffered July 26 th 1853
Personally appeared Martha Chap- lin Henrietta Hatheway and Robert Hatheway signers and sealers of the fore- going instrument and acknowledged the same to be their free act & deed -
Before me -
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace -

I Martha Chaplin of Suffield in the County of Hartford, and State of Connecticut, deposit say
That I am the daughter of Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy late of said Suffield deceased, and that I am 54 years of age. My Father died the 17 th day of May 1831. - I was in the habit of seeing my father almost daily all my life until his death. - I have frequently heard my Father converse respecting his service in the revolutionary War. - I cannot now recollect any particular time when he gave me an account of his services; though I remember that during the last war with England my husband enlisted as a Soldier, and was in the northern army, and at the battles of Chippewa and Bridgewater (his name was Warren Smith), he was my first husband - and I am now married to my second husband. - I staid during his absence at my fathers house; He used to talk during that time a great deal about his former services in the Revolution. He spoke of several terms of service; - But I cannot now recollect them all. The first time was during the winter of 1775-6 in a Regiment in Genl. Spencers brigade, stationed near Boston; His uncle, Lieut. John Pomeroy

was there, and he used to relate how they used to be together, and talked about home. - I do not think he held any commission at that time. The next time of service was at New-London - This was the same year, that Independence was declared,
My impression is that at this time he served the largest part of a year. - I think he said that his regiment was ordered to New-York - and I have heard him speak of the retreat from Long-Island, and the Battle of White-Plains, but whether as being present at these times, or not, I should not dare to swear-positively. My Father was a Lieutenant at this time.
I should think that my Father was out in 1777, but my recollections are not definite. I have heard him speak of being at Peekskill and Fishkill and West-Point and think that it was after he got home from New-London but except a decided impression that he was at home but very little of the time, from the commencement of the war until near the close of it, I cannot swear that he told me he served much in 1777.
After this he commanded a Company in the expedition to Rhode Island. - I have heard him speak of this service, and its incidents frequently, and with considerable particularity. I have to day, and several times before, been shewn a "pay roll of a Company commanded by Nathaniel Porning in Col. Samuel Chapmans Regiment of Connecticut.

Marched to Ro. I. from the State of Connecticut in Aug. 1778. This roll I am informed by Mr. Daniel W. Norton of this town, was found in Albert Kings garret.
The signature of this roll I am confident is my fathers hand writing. The writing in the body of the roll, is his I think but of the signature there is no doubt.
I have heard my Father speak of a long term of service in the latter part of the war and of his being at this time or some other stationed at Stamford and Hornbeck.
During the time that I was at my fathers house, while my husband was absent in the army; as I have related, my Mother used to sympathise with me a good deal. and tell me, she knew just how to feel for me, for that my Father after their marriage was absent in the revolutionary army a long time, my impression is she said ten months in the whole. I cannot say positively that she said that they were married before he went to Rhode Island, but I think they were.
My Father used to have a large chest, with a lid in it, which he used to keep his commissions in. There were several of them. I have often

Seen them, though while he lived, he would not allow any-one to handle them. I have frequently heard him call them his commissions, and say, that they might be sometime be of service to his children, or that we ought or might be proud of them. After my father's death the mice knew through this chest and ate up a great portion of the papers or parchments and the fragments were burned, when the house was pulled down. Some fifteen years ago, twenty years upon consideration. These papers were large and with big oval seals upon them. I have no doubt but that they were commissions.
My Mother's maiden name was Martha Spencer, she never married again, after my father's death, she continued to reside in Suffield and died the 16 th of January 1840.
I remember that before her death Richard Warner and Isaac Warner, who were revolutionary pensioners used occasionally to urge Mother to apply for a pension. I have heard them say that they knew of, and I think they said could testify to service enough performed by my father, to entitle her to a full pension. They lived some five or six miles away and they are now both dead.
The reason why my mother did not apply was that her health was very poor, and though she talked a good deal about it, she kept

deferring it, and my Brother who is now dead was afraid that the application would fail and make a good deal of expense.
He said that if a pension could have been got father would have got it himself in his lifetime.
When my Mother died she left three children living. My brother Nathaniel Pomeroy, since dead, leaving a Widow and five children, my sister Henrietta the wife of Robert Rathbun and myself.
There were but two Nathaniel Pomeroy's living in Suffield, during the revolutionary war, that I ever heard of. - These two were my father and my grand-father. My grand-father always kept a tavern, and went by the name of landlord Pomeroy, I never heard of his being in the service.
There is no record preserved by any of the children of my father and mother's Marriage, except an entry from the town clerks. Book, and this is imperfect. It does not give the date. - I do not know the date of the marriage, and do not know of any means of ascertaining.

My Mother used to speak of how she used to make shift to get along, during my fathers absences, and I think that she had a child while he was absent. I think therefore that they were married early in the war.
The roll I have spoken of was found I am told by Albert King himself and given to Mr. Norton. — I have no doubt of its being genuine.
Martha Chaplin
The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed to before me. The 26 th day of July AD 1853. and I hereby certify that the said deponent, Martha Chaplin, is fully worthy of credit, and I am acquainted with her reputation for truth, that the foregoing deposition is in my own hand writing & that I have no interest in the claim which said deposition is intended to sustain.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace.

I Bela Spence of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut being duly sworn depose and say. That I was born in Suffield the 10 th of March 1771, and have lived here ever since have always resided in this town, I used to know Capt Nathaniel Pomeroy formerly of this town. I knew him well he was brought up close by when I was brought up. in the same neighborhood, he married a double cousin of mine, he died about twenty years ago, I was married to my 2 d Wife about twenty two years ago - and I think he died the spring after, his fathers name was also Nathaniel Pomeroy. he died a good many years ago after I was grown up, his son was called Nathaniel Pomeroy Jr. and Captain Pomeroy, while the old man was always called landlord Pomeroy, from the fact that he kept a Tavern. I never knew that the old man was in the service, in the Revolutionary War, at least of any great account, but the young man was in service a good deal, I lived with him as a hired man for a year, soon after the close of the war, I was then 16 or seventeen years of age, I used to hear him talk a good deal, about his service, and the War, during this time and I have since heard him talk of these things. If I was a going to talk about the

Matter in common conversation, I should say that Capt. Pomeroy, was in service during most of the Revolutionary War, but I cannot now swear, to hearing him speak of more than two terms.
I have heard him speak of being stationed at New London - for a long time, and of watching the British on the Sound, and I have him tell of being, an Officer, in the expedition to Rhode Island and besides I remember hearing that he had gone to Rhode Island, in the day and time of it.
There have been no other Nathaniel Pomeroy in this town since my recollection, except land-lord Nathaniel Pomeroy, Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy his son, of whom I have been speaking, and his son, Nathaniel Pomeroy, - he is now dead, he was not old enough, to have served in the War, indeed he hardly was born - at the close of the War. Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy was married before the close of the Revolution. I think he must have been married at the time of the Expedition to Rhode Island..
Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy was always reported to be a Revolutionary Officer, while he lived, & I have no doubt served as such during the most of the war, his Wife's name was Martha Spencer, She was my double.

Cousin. She died thirteen years ago last January. She lived and died his Widow, after her husband, Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy's death. — The only children then living at the time of Widow Martha Pomeroy's death were Nathaniel Pomeroy, Susanna Hathaway wife of Robert Hathaway, and Martha Chaplin wife of Ebeneser Chaplin, all of this town. Nathaniel is since dead.
Bela Spencer
The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed to, before me this 17 th day of October A.D. 1853. and I hereby certify that I am well acquainted with the said deponent, Bela Spencer, and with his reputation as to truth, and that he is a credible witness in every respect; I further certify that said deposition is drawn in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim, which said deposition is intended to sustain.
Daniel W. Horton justice of the Peace.

I Luther Loomis of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, being first duly sworn depose and say.
That I am the Town Clerk of the said town of Suffield, and that on the 202 nd page of Vol. 1. of Births, Deaths and Marriages in the records of said Town is the following entry viz: "Nathaniel Pomeroy and Martha Spencer were Married" the date being entirely omitted — and I further depose and say that the above entry is apparently ancient, and is in the handwriting of Alexander King who was as appears from the records of said Town the Town Clerk thereof continuously from 1775. to 1862. at which last date he died.
And I further depose that the aforesaid entry is the only entry of the marriage of Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy and Martha Spencer on the records of said Town or to my knowledge elsewhere.
And I further depose and say that

on the said 202 nd page of Vol. 1. of Births Deaths and Marriages in the Records of said Town it appears that the said Nathaniel Pomeroy died the 17 th day of May 1831. - but there is no record of the death of Martha Pomeroy his Widow. - but according to the best of my recollection she survived him about ten years.
I am told that she died on the 16 th of January 1840. - and this is probably the correct date.
It also appears by the said records that Thaddeus King was a Constable and collector of Taxes in this Town, during several years of the Revolutionary War. And it is my opinion, that his house would be a likely place in which ancient matriculated pay rolls of that period would be found if at all.
And I certify that I am acquainted with Albert King a Grand-Son of the said Thaddeus King and that he resides in the said house, in which his said Grand-Father resided during the Revolutionary War.

according to report, and I further certify, that said Albert King is a person of good reputation for truth and veracity.
And I further certify that I am acquainted with Daniel W. Norton and David Hale Esquires with Mr. Bela Spencer, and with Mrs Martha Chaplin and Miss Lucy Austin, and that each of said persons sustains a good reputation, for truth and veracity in this community, and deserve to be believed under oath.
The years which Theodorus King served as Constable & collector of taxes were 1777-1778 and 1780.
Luther Loomis Town Clerk
The foregoing deposition, was sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 th of November 1853. and I further certify that I am well acquainted with said deponent. Luther Loomis & that he is a credible witness. That the foregoing deposition is drawn in my own hand writing, & that I am not interested in the claim, which it is intended to support.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace.

I Lucy Austin of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, being duly sworn depose and say.
That I was born in Suffield the 16 th day of May 1769 and have ever since resided in said town. I have never known in my time but three Nathaniel Pomeroy's living in this town; or heard of any other. They were Father Son and Grand Son; and were each neighbors & acquaintances of mine. The father kept a tavern, in the same neighborhood, with my father, during the Revolution, he was called generally Landlord Pomeroy.
I remember him perfectly. he died before 1800; I think - a good many years ago. I never knew, or heard of his serving in the war; and though he might have been out in one or two short terms of service,
I feel very sure that he was generally at home during the war. I know that people used to go to Landlord Pomeroy's to talk over the news during the war. They also used to come a good deal to our house and talk about the war and the battles and who was gone & where they had gone to, and I used to be very willing to hear it all. My recollections of those days is more  very distinct than of many periods long since. I knew the 2 d Nathaniel Pomeroy, he was his father's oldest son, and was a man grown ever since I can remember.
He was called Captain Pomeroy in War time

and I used to understand that he was a Captain in the army. I remember that he was gone a great deal during the war; though he was at home enough so, that I used always to know and recognise him. It was said he was gone to the army; but when I should not dare to swear, though I have my impressions. I do remember hearing it said that he had gone to Rhode-Island - and that a good many of our neighbors had gone with him in his Company; He was at this time a married man. He married Martha Spencer, I well recollect the time of the wedding; I recollect it by this circumstance; my father and Mother went to the wedding, and I suppose it must have been quite a grand affair, for it made a good deal of talk, and a good many went to this wedding.
I was left at home to take care of the younger children, I was the oldest girl; the oldest child, and I felt the responsibility. I was not more than eight years old, it was the fore-part of the war. - But I recollect it as well as any event of my life. - My Mother got every thing ready for us. It kindled a fire in the front room, so that it was not quite so lonesome and gave me charge what to do; and

I remember her praising me when she got back, - I was a small child.
The 2 nd Nathaniel Pomeroy was called Captain Pomeroy all his life, and was always reputed to be a Revolutionary Officer. - I cannot say that I have ever heard him speak of his services, after the war, but I presume I have.
He died a good many years ago. - I am told it was the 16 th or 17 th of May 1831, and that accords with my recollection. He left a son Nathaniel, (who is since dead,) and two daughters. Martha, wife of Ebenazar Chaplin and Henrietta wife of Robert Hathaway. - His widow survived him several years. - She never married again. She was a very aged woman - but I don't know how old. - I am told she died the 16 th of January 1840, and this accords with my recollection, that is to say, I should think it was, just about that time ago.
Lucy Austin

The foregoing deposition was sworn to, and subscribed to, before me, this 25 th day of October A.D. 1853. and I hereby certify that I am well ac- -quainted with said deponent, Lucy Austin, and with her reputation, as to truth & veracity that she is a credible witness in every respect.
I further certify that said deposition is drawn in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim; which said deposition is intended to Sustain.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace.

I David Hale of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, being duly sworn depose and say. — That I am sixty seven years of age, and have resided since my birth in the town of Suffield. I have never known of but two Pomeroy Nathaniel living in this town, since my recollection. Captain Nathaniel Pomeroy and his son Nathaniel; both are now dead. Capt. Pomeroy died as I am told, the 17 th of May 1831, which accords with my recollections. — His Widow survived him nearly ten years. — I knew them both very well. — was brought up in the same neighborhood, where they lived. Captain Nathaniel Pomeroy was always reputed to be an old revolutionary Captain. — I have heard him say so. — I do not remember accurately what I have heard him say. — but I should think that I have heard him speak of commanding a company at Rhode Island. — of being at New-London and of being in battle of White Plains.
I recollect that I have heard him say often, and joke about it that his oldest child was born while he was absent on one of his tours of service. I do not know his age when he died. — He was an old man when I was a boy. — at best.

I used to consider him so.
I remember Captain Pomeroy saying that he was in service once near New York.
The general understanding of every body was when he was yet alive was that he had served as an officer during a great part of the Revolution. —
On 4 th of July celebrations, as we used to have there here he would always lead off the Revolutionary veterans. His Widow never married again. Her maiden name was Martha Spencer. — am well acquainted, with the family from whence she came. — I do not know her age, at her death.
Captain Pomeroy if living must have been at this time more than a hundred years old. — The only children living now are Mrs. Chaplin and Mrs. Hattenway. — They are the youngest of the children.
David P. Field

The foregoing Deposition was sworn to and subscribed to, before me this 15 th day of November A.D. 1853, and I hereby certify that I am well acquainted with the said Deponent, David Hall, and with his reputation as to truth, and that he is a credible witness in every respect; - I further certify that said deposition is drawn in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim, which said deposition is intended to sustain.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace.

I, Albert King of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut being duly sworn depose and say: That I am the son of John King and the Grand-son of Thaddeus King, both formerly, while living, of the said town, That I now reside in the house where my said Grand-Father lived during the revolutionary War, and where he died.
That at the request of D. W. Norton Esq. of this town, to whom I had applied for information, with respect to obtaining an arrearage of pension, for my Grand-father Thaddeus King's service, I searched in my house for documents, pertaining to the Revolutionary War, among his old papers, that were still preserved, and that sometime during the months of January or February 1852 I found upon a shelf over the chimney in a chamber in my house several papers which I delivered to the said Norton, among which were several pay-rolls, one of Capt. Sheldon's Company in 1779, - one of Lt. Nobles Company in 1779, and one of Capt. Nathl. Pomeroy's Company. The caption of this last named roll was as follows, "Suffield November the 15- 1779, - A Pay Roll of the Bounty and

wages of Capt. Keith." Pomeroy Company in Col o Samuel Chapmans Reg t of the Militia - March d to Rhode Island from the State of Connecticut in August 1778." The roll contains 25 names and the sum gener- ally paid carried out against each mans name is £ 6. 6. 8. The roll is signed. "Keith." Pomeroy Capt." The shelf upon which they - the papers, among which was this roll - were found, was put up by my father as much as forty years ago. I remember when he did it - and remember his taking the papers and a good many others out of a chest, and put- ting them on the shelf - there they remained, un- disturbed until I looked them over as I have stated - The appearance of this roll and all of the other paper is very ancient. I gave them to Mr. Norton just as I found them - I have seen this roll since, and it appears just as it did when I gave it to him. It has not been altered, and in my opinion it is a genuine document. Albert King

The foregoing Deposition was sworn to before and subscribed to, before me this 5. th day of December A.D. 1853, and I hereby certify that I am well acquainted with the said Deponent Albert King, and with his reputation as to truth, and that he is a credible witness in every respect.
I further certify that said deposition is drawn in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim which said deposition is intended to sustain.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace.

Claim of the Heirs of Martha Pomroy Deps. of Luther Loomis & Fanny Pomroy
N o 38,853
Act 7 June 1832

State of Connecticut, } ss. Hartford County, }
County Clerk's Office, Hartford, November 9 th 1854.
Walt A. Hambley Esq. Clerk of the County Court, within and for the County of Hartford and keeper of the Seal thereof, hereby certify that
Daniel W. Norton Esquire,
was on the 30 th day of October A. D. 1854, ever since has been, and now is, a Justice of the Peace within and for the said County, duly elected and sworn, with authority by the laws of this State, to administer Oaths, and take the acknowledgment of Deeds and other Instruments; that I am acquainted with his hand-writing, and that the signature to the instrument hereto annexed, purporting to be his, is his genuine, official signature.
In Testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and the seal of said County Court, this 9 th day of November A. D. 1854.
Walt A. Hambley Clerk.

I Luther Loonis of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut do on oath depose and say -
That I am the Town Clerk of said town of Suffield - that I have this day been shown two deeds, one executed by Nathaniel Pomroy to his brother Ebenezer Pomroy dated 16 th January 1799 for £46. consideration.
The other, from said Capt. Nathaniel Pomroy to his son Nathaniel Pomroy dated March 22 nd 1815 for £150 consideration - both of these deeds I find recorded in the Records of Lands of Suffield according to the endorsed Certificate written upon each.
The first mentioned in Vol. 8 th page 207 the other in Vol. 13 th page 79. - There can be no doubt of the authenticity of the deeds or of the genuineness of the signatures - which are beyond all question those of Capt. Nathaniel Pomroy who died in this town in May 1831 the father of Mrs. Chaplin and Mrs. Hathaway.
Luther Loonis Town Clerk.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8 th day of November A.D. 1854., and I further certify that the foregoing deposition is drawn in the hand writing of said deponent, and that I have no interest in the claim for an arrear of pension, which, said deposition is intended to support.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace.

I Fanny C. Pomeroy of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut do on oath depose and say, that I am fifty seven - years of age, I am the Widow of Nathaniel Pomeroy who died in this town 18 th August A.D. 1848. I have since his death resided in Suffield. - My husband was the son of Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy who died in May 1831. - His Father was also named Nathaniel Pomeroy, but he died before my recollection. - My Husbands-father was reputed to be a Revolutionary Soldier, and I have heard him tell of his services in the war.
His Widdows name was Martha, she died in January 1840. I knew that the heirs were trying to get a pension allowed, but did not myself sign because, I lived at some distance & it was not convenient.
Some months ago Mr. Phelps who is the Attorney that manages the claim asked me if I could not find among my husbands papers some containing the signature of my husbands father Capt. Pomeroy. - I searched & found among the old papers a deed from my husbands father to my husband dated 22 d March 1815, Consideration $150.
Recorded in Suffield Records Vol. 13 th p 79.

The signature is that of my husband's father I have no doubt. — It can't be otherwise, The papers among which I found this deed my husband used always to keep carefully until his death, & since then they have never been out of my possession.
Fanny A. Loring
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30 th day of October A.D. 1854, and I further certify that the foregoing deposition is drawn in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim for an arrear of pension, which said deposition is intended to support.
Daniel H. Norton Justice of the Peace.

October 10, 1932
Miss Charlotte Carrier 502 Crescent Street Edgerton Wisconsin
BA-J/MCS Nathaniel Pomroy W. 17482
Dear Madam:
Reference is made to your letter of October 1, 1932, requesting information in regard to Nathaniel Pomeroy who served during the Revolution.
The data furnished herein were obtained from papers on file in the pension claim, W. 17482, based upon the military service of Nathaniel Pomroy, the only soldier by that name that is found in the Revolutionary War records of this office.
He was the eldest son of Nathaniel and Abigail Pomroy but the date of his birth and place of birth were not given.
While a resident of Suffield, Connecticut, he enlisted and served with the Connecticut troops as follows: during the winter of 1775 and 1776 he served in a regiment in General Spencer's Brigade and was stationed near Boston, names of officers not given; on June 10, 1776, he was appointed a second lieutenant in Captain John Harmon's Company in Colonel John Douglass' Battalion but was ordered to serve as first lieutenant in Captain Abiel Pease's Company in Colonel Erastus Wolcott's Regiment of Coast Guards and served until January 3, 1777; in August, 1778, he was a captain of militia in Colonel Samuel Chapman's Regiment and went on Sullivan's expedition to Rhode Island and served about two months.
He married about 1777 Martha Spencer who was the daughter of Ensign Spencer.
He died May 17, 1831.

His widow, Martha, died January 16, 1840, in Suffield, Connecticut, leaving the following children: Nathaniel who died August 18, 1848, leaving a widow, Fanny A., and five children whose names were not given; Martha who was fifty-four years of age in 1853 and who first married Warren Smith and then Ebenezer Chaplin; and Henrietta who was born in August, 1803, and who married Robert Hatheway. There were other children but no names were stated other than that of Thaddeus who died February 21, 1829, aged forty-six years.
Pension was allowed to the heirs on an application executed November 15, 1853.
No charge is made for this service. Your remittance, twenty-five cents in stamps, is herewith returned.
Very truly yours
A. D. HILLER Assistant to Administrator

State of Connecticut Comptrollers Office Hartford July 27 th 1783
I certify, that there is now deposited in this office a Pay Roll of which the following is a true copy vis.
"Suffield November 15-1779"
"A Pay Roll of the Bounty and Wages of Capt. Nath l Pomroy Company in Col. Samuel Chapman Regt. of
"Militia March to Rhode Island from the State of Connecticut in August 1778"
Mens Names L S D for money that I Paid to them
   Mens Names L S D     "Lieut. Lieut. Ingraham 7 00 10   "Corps Eliphat Spencer 6 15 00   "Ashele Adams 5 11 8 Ashele Adams 00 15 00   "Abijah Remington 6 06 08   "Ashele Southwell 5 14 08   "Denis Bling a a a   "David Tonsly 5 14 08   "Daniel Warner 6 06 08   "Elijah Hale a a a   "Luther Trumbel 3 09 04 Luther Trumbel 02 17 04   "John Hathway 5 08 08 John Hathway 00 18 00   "Isaac Warner 3 09 04 Isaac Warner 02 17 04   "Isaac Lenan 6 04 08   "Seth Hathway 6 06 08   "Willby Hathway 6 06 08   "Joseph Harmon 6 06 08   "Seth Woolworth 6 06 08   "Jonathan Hopkins 5 11 08 Jonathan Hopkins 00 15 00   86 15 10   "John Hatheway sold to Guilford Hatheway"   "Seth Hatheway sold to Asahel Smith" Nath l Pomroy Capt l  

I further certify, that from the appearance of the document of which the foregoing is a copy, and from the marks of age which it bears, I believe that it is an original and genuine document, and that it was executed at the time when it bears date,
R. G. Paine Comptroller by Geo. Robinson Clerk.

33291 Connecticut Nathaniel Pomroy, dec d
of Lieut. in the State of who was a Captain in the Revolution by Captain of the commanded by in the commanded time for 6 Mos. + 20 days. St. 3 2 " Capt. 3
Inscribed on the Roll of Castford at the rate of 128. Dollars 80. Cents per annum. to commence on the 4th day of March, 1831. Vend 17 th May 1831.
Certificate of Pension issued the 1 st day of March 1855. and sent to
Arrears to the 4th of Hon. J. M. Pratt Semi-ant. allowance ending No. of R.
{ Revolutionary Claim. } G. J. Gilly June 7. 1832. Recorded by G. J. Gilly Clerk. Book E n Vol. 3. Page 35.

11.743
Connecticut, Martha Tomroy, decd., widow of Nathaniel who died on the 17. May 1831. of in the State of who was a Lieut. in the commanded by Captain Captain of the commanded by 4 mos. + 20 days, Lt. Revolution line for 2 " Captain,
Inscribed on the Roll of Hartford at the rate of 128 Dollars 80. Cents per annum, to commence on the 4th day of March, 1836. Voted 16th January 1840.
Certificate of Pension issued the 12th day of March 1833. and sent to
Con. J. W. Pratt Arrears to the 4th of Semi-annual allowance ending N. of R
{ Revolutionary Claim, } { Act July 7, 1838. }
Recorded by G. J. Getty Clerk. Book D. Vol. 1. Page 91.

1912 Feb. 27 Hish L Mr. D. C. Pomeroy V.L.H. Letter in P.F. 3721 Daniel Pomeroy
1927 Jan. 13 hist. to Mrs. D. C. P. Baker 70 AS
1932 Oct. 10 hist. to Miss Charlotte Carrier 71 AS
Rev WIDOW, &c.
File No. 174 82 Martha Pomeroy Widow of Nathaniel Pomeroy Capt. Rev. Nat
Act: July 4 th 1836
Index:—Vol. M, Page 189
[Arrangement of 1870.]

No 8,024 Martha Pomroy decd. Widow of Nathaniel G C.W. Phillips. Jany 18 1854
Produce this Count!
Act July 4 1836

Claim of the Heirs of Martha Poinroy Pay Roll of Capt. Poinroy's Co. in R. I. Expedition
1 SP P P P P P

No 8,024.
Martha Pomroy Ec o widow of Nathaniel.
Conn.
C. W. Phillips Jany. 18. th 1854. Hon. J. S. Pratt 9 th Feby. 1855.
(No 15,263) (Act July 7/38)
Act 11 th July 1836.

Claim of the Heirs of
Martha Pomroy
Deeds executed by Capt. Nathaniel Pomroy.

State of Connecticut Comptroller's Office Hartford July 15 th 1853
I certify, that on application for evidence of the service of Nathaniel Pomroy in the war of the Revolution, I have exam- ined the documents remaining in this office and do not find any Pay Roll of Lieut. Abiel Pease's Company in Col. Erastus Wol- cott's Regt. in this office.
On one of the Books of the Pay Table Office under date of January 10 th 1777, I find the following entry viz. "Post of New London D r To State of Connct. For the Pay, Subsistence &c. of a Company stationed at New London under the command of Lieut. Abiel Pease Col. Erastus Wolcott's Regt. from June 10 th 1776 to January 3 rd 1777, viz     Wages in Roll  1256.18.6     Enlisting Prem d at 20/  85. 0. 0     Equipping do  97. 18. 0     Mileage  22. 7. 7     Billeting  73. 12. 8     Commissions  6. 9. -  £1,542. 5. 9     R.G. Pinney Comptroller by Geo. Robinson Clerk.

Pension Office Jany 18, 1854.
Sir,
The application of Martha Pomroy dec d widow of Nathaniel P. has been examined and filed under the act of July 4, 1836. Pensions are not allowed for a shorter period of service than six months, and the evidence filed, does not show that Nathaniel Pomroy served so long, I have no means of determining how long he served under his appointment as 2 d and 1 st Lieutenant. The pay-roll of Captain Pomroy does not indicate the length of his service in the capacity of Captain. And if it were admitted that six months service had been established, it has not been sufficiently shown that the man admitted to have served, was the father of the applicants. If it is determined to prosecute the claim farther, a fac-simile of his name as signed upon his Pay-Roll, must be forwarded to this office, together with some original documents of his, with his name to them, which may be in the possession of some of his family.
Very Respectfully Your Ob t Serv t
Calvin W. Phillips Esq. Hartford Conn.
L. A. Malles Commissioner.

Martha Pomroy dec d Widow of Nathaniel Connecticut adm d July 4 1836 6 mo & 20 ds Lieut $88.80 2 " Capt n 40.00 $128.80
per annum from 17 May 1831 when her husband died, to 16 January 1840 when she died
Pay Calvin W Philles adm r , for Martha Chaplin 1 and Henrietta Hathaway 2  only children
7 3 Deduct the payments under the act July 7 1838,
Cert to Calvin W Philles Esq Hartford Conn

Webb Hotel, 1042 Broad Way
My dear Sir
The accompanying papers came to hand to night, and permit me to call yr particular attention to them. I hope they may be sufficient to accomplish the object in view. Pray to accommodate Mr Phillips.
Yours Truly
James P. Smith
Wm L. P. Moulds

Nathaniel Pomroy dec. d Conn.
Admitted.
Act 7 th June 1832.
6 mos. 20 days lieut. $88.80
2 " captain 40.00
$128.80
At the rate of $128.80 per annum from 4 th March 1831, to 17 th May 1831, when he died.
Martha Pomroy dec. d widow of Nathaniel, Conn.
Admitted.
Act 7 th July 1838.
6 mos. 20 days lieut. $88.80
2 " Captain 40.00
$128.80
$128.80 per annum from 4 th March 1836, to 16 th January 1840, when she died.
Pay Calvin W. Phillips Admin. for benefit of.
Martha Chaplin &
Henrietta Hathaway only sur- viving children.
Certificate to,
Hon. J. W. Pratt.
House of Reps.

Brief in the case of Martha Pomroy dec'd widow of Nathaniel Hartford County and State of Connecticut act July 4/1838
Claim, ("original," or "for increase.")
Proof exhibited, (if original.)
Is it documentary, traditional, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
The accompanying brief of Mr. Rhetts will show upon what ground the case was admitted by the  him  Rhetts under the Act of July 4/1838, the claim was originally made for the benefits of the Act of 1830; - Lucy Austin testified in the case when before the first allowance was made, and declared that the marriage took place before the services of her husband terminated and gave some circumstances, tending to show the accuracy of her statements. She now makes a fuller (If for increase) statement of some of these circumstances, among
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? If so, what?
She distinctly recollects that when the marriage took place one of her brother's was an infant in the cradle, upon a recurrence to her father's family Bible she finds that said brother was born in Feb y 1777, Nathaniel Pomroy was in service as late as August 1778 of course, if order is to be believed the marriage refers to must have taken place before August 1778. They declare it took place in the fall of 1777 and this time agreed with the testimony of Lucy Austin. The commission is acquainted with most of the facts and is satisfied of the propriety of the admission under the Act of 1830 deducting what has been paid under the Act of 1838, & directs the admission
Name and residence of Agent Calvin H. Phelps Esq
Hartford Conn.
Thornton T. Fletcher Examining Clerk.

Breit in the cases of Nathaniel Pomroy dec d and Martha Pomroy dec d widow of Nathaniel.
Hartford in County and State of Connecticut.
acts 7 th June 1832 and 7 th July. 1838.
Claim, ("original," or "for increase.")
Proof exhibited, (if original.)
Is it documentary, traditional, or supported by rolls? If either, state the substance.
Nathaniel served six months and twenty days as a Lieutenant, and two months as a Captain of militia; proved by Bela Spencer, Luther Loomis, the Act of Assembly of Connecticut, and the original muster Roll of Capt. Nathaniel Pomroy's Company.
Nathaniel and Martha married before 1 st January 1794; proved by Lucy Austin, David Hale and Certificate of the Town Clerk of Suffield.
Nathaniel died on 17 th May 1831. - proved by Luther Loomis, Bela Spencer, Lucy Austin &c.
Martha died on 16 th January 1840. - proved by Order of Suffield County Court, Luther Loomis, Lucy Austin.
Martha Chaplin & Henrietta Hathaway, only surviving children. proved by Lucy Austin, Luther Loomis &c.
(If for increase.) C. W. Phillips Administrator. Bond $2,000.
Has additional evidence been filed since the admission of the claim? - If so, what?
Name and residence of Agent
Hon. J. T. Pratt.
House of Reps.
Charles H. Rhett.
Examining Clerk.

Rev. & 1812 War Section
January 13, 1927
Mrs. Bush T. Baker Olympia, Route 1, Box 49 Washington
Madam:
I have to advise you that from the papers in the Revolutionary War pension claim, W. 17482, it appears that NATHANIEL POMROY was the son of Nathaniel and Abigail, date of his birth not stated.
While a resident of Suffield, Connecticut, he enlisted and served with the Connecticut troops as follows:
During the winter of 1775 and 1776 he served in a regiment in General Spencer's Brigade and was stationed near Boston, names of officers not stated.
June 10, 1776, he was appointed a Second Lieutenant in Captain John Harmon's Company in Colonel John Douglass' Battalion, but was ordered to serve as First Lieutenant in Captain Abiel Pease's Company in Colonel Erastus Wolcott's Regiment of Coast Guards, and served until January 3, 1777.
In August, 1778, he was a Captain of Militia in Colonel Samuel Chapman's Regiment and went on Sullivan's expedition to Rhode Island and served about two months.

He married about 1777 Martha Spencer who was the daughter of Ensign Spencer.
He died May 17, 1831.
His widow, Martha, died January 16, 1840, in Suffield, Connecticut, leaving the following children: Nathaniel who died August 18, 1848, and left a widow, Fanny A.; 5 children Martha who was fifty-four years of age in 1853 and who first married Warren Smith and then Ebenezer Chaplin; and Henrietta who was born in August, 1803, and who married Robert Hatheway. There were other children but no names were stated other than that of Thaddeus who died February 21, 1829, aged forty-six years.
Pension was allowed to the heirs on an application executed November 15, 1853.
The above noted is the only Nathaniel Pomroy or Pomeroy on account of whose services in the Revolution claim was made to the United States for pension or bounty land.
Respectfully,
WINFIELD SCOTT Commissioner

War.
March 27, 1912.
Mr. D. C. Pomeroy, Clarksville, Albany County, N. Y.
Sir:
In reply to your letter dated the 18 th and received the 19 th instant, you are advised that from the papers in the claim Wid. File # 17,482, Rev. War, it appears that Nathaniel  Nathan Pomroy, the son of Abigail and Nathaniel Pomroy, and a resident of Suffield, Connecticut, served during the Winter of 1775-6, in a regiment in General Spencer's brigade, and was stationed near Boston; names of officers not given.
June 10, 1776, he was appointed a 2d Lieut. in Captain John Harmon's company, in Colonel John Douglass' battalion, but was ordered to serve as First Lieut. in Captain Abiel Pease's company, Colonel Erastus Wolcott's regiment of Coast Guards and served until January 3, 1777.
In August 1778, he was a Captain of Militia in Colonel Samuel Chapman's regiment, was in the Rhode Island Expedition and served about two months.
He married about February, 1777, Martha Spencer, daughter of Eunice Spencer and died May 17, 1831. She died in Suffield, Connecticut, January 16, 1840, leaving the following children: Nathaniel who died August 18, 1848. (wife Fanny A.) Martha, who was fifty-four years old

in 1853. first married Warren Smith and then Ebenezer Chaplin; and Henrietta born August, 1803, wife of Robert Hatheway. There were other children but no names are stated other than Thaddeus who died February 21, 1829, aged forty-six years.
The widow's pension was allowed to the heirs on an application executed November 15, 1853.
Very respectfully,
Commissioner.

8-3 cts + a 1 ct. Stamp Enclosed. ew. P.
502 Crescent Street Edgerton, Wisconsin October 1, 1932
Pension Bureau Washington, W. C.
Gentlemen:
Please let me know if there is any information in your files concerning one, Nathaniel Pomeroy , who served in the Revolutionary War. I believe he died in Suffield, Connecticut, as he is buried there, and at one time his pension rights were in the possession of his son, who was also named Nathaniel Pomeroy.
I would like to secure what genealogical data may be on record concerning these men  men , which could be used in filling out papers of application for admittance to the Daughters of the American Revolution.
Enclosed is twenty five cents in stamps , to cover the charge.
Respectfully, (Mrs) Charlotte Carrier

Olympia, Wash., Nov. 9 th , 1926.
The Commissioner of Pensions, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir,
I wish to obtain a record of the Revolutionary War services of Nathaniel Pomeroy, who was born in Suffield, Conn., May 23 rd , 1734.
I understand that he served as captain of a company in Samuel Chapman's regiment, under command of Major General Sullivan also as a lieutenant and later as captain of Conn te Militia.
Thanking you for any assistance you may be able to give me in this matter I am
Yours respectfully, Mrs. Bush J. B. Baker, Rt. 1, Box 49.
Olympia, Wash.

Nathan Pomeroy Sur. Deed from Nath o Pomeroy Bear March 22. 1815 and Recorded in Suffield Records of Land Vol. 13. page 79 - B r Oliver Chase Register
Sur. paid

Be know all Men by these presents that I Nathaniel Pomeroy of Suffield in the County of Hartford & State of Connecticut for divers good causes & considerations therein to moving especially for One Hundred & fifty Dollars Received to my full satisfaction of Nathaniel Pomeroy Junr of said Suffield have remised, released and forever quitclaimed, and do by these presents for myself & my heirs forever absolutely remise, release and forever quitclaim unto the said Nathaniel Junr and to his heirs & assigns, all such right & title as I the said Nathaniel have or ought to have in or to all that part of the Real Estate of my Hon d Father Nathaniel Pomeroy late of said Suffield deceased, which was set out in the distribution of said Estate to my Mother the Widow Abigail Pomeroy as Dower in said Estate, said property lies part in said Suffield and part in Windsor in said County, and for a description of said Estate reference may be had to the distribution of said Estate
To have & to hold the premises unto him the said Grantee his heirs & assigns, to the only use & behoof of the said Grantee his heirs & assigns forever, so that neither I the said Grantor nor any other person in my name & behalf, shall or will hereafter claim or demand any right or title to the premises, or any part thereof, but they & every of them, shall by these presents be excluded & forever barred.
In Witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 22 d day of March in the year of our Lord 1815
Signed, sealed & delivered in presence of Nathaniel Pomeroy Oliver Pease
Nath l Pomeroy
Hartford County ss Suffield March 22 d 1815
Personally appeared Nathaniel Pomeroy signed & sealed the foregoing instrument & acknowledged the same to be his free act & deed before me — Oliver Pease Justici Peace

Suffield Count Feby. 17 th 1855.
To the Hon. Loren P. Waldo Commr. of Pensions.
We the undersigned the claimants in the matter of the application for an arrearage of pension to the heirs of Martha Pomeroy deceased, widow of Nathaniel Pomeroy late of said Suffield deceased, for revolutionary services performed by the said Nathaniel Pomeroy, do hereby make known our request and desire that if the said claim for want of due proof at the present time cannot be allowed under the Act. of July 4 th 1836 the same may be allowed under the provisions of the act of July 7 th 1838, and that a certificate may issue accordingly to Calum W. Phillips, who has been at our request appointed the administrator on the estate of the said Martha Pomeroy by the Hon. Court of Probate within and for the District of Suffield, where the said Martha

in her life time dwelt and where she died -
Martha Chaplin
Henrietta Hathaway
In presence of -
Robert H. Hathaway
Daniel W. Norton.

At a General Assembly of the Governor and Compa- ny of the English Colony of Connecticut in New England in America, holden at Hartford in said Colony on the sec- ond Thursday of May (being the ninth day of said month) and continued by several adjournments until the eighth day of June following Annoq Domini, 1776.
An Act for raising two regiments of troops within this Colony for the special defence of the same.
Whereas the present alarming Movements and appearances of the Ministerial army and navy are such as render it highly probable that a sudden Attack will soon be made by them upon this and the neighboring Colonies for the most Hostile and destructive purposes. which to prevent which to prevent be it Enacted by the Governor, Council and Representatives in General Court assembled and by the authority of the same. That one Regiment of the inhabitants of this Colony shall be immediately raised by voluntary Enlistment and that the troops already raised at and about New London and New Haven, shall in the same way

be augmented into a second Regiment for the special defence of this and the neighboring Colonies as the case may require, each of said regiments to consist of one Colonel one Lieut. Colonel one Major and eight Companies with one Captain two Lieut's one Ensign four Sergeants four Corporals one Drummer, and one Fifer and seventy six privates to each company and a Staff to consist of one Chaplain one Adjutant one Quarter Master one Surgeon and one Surgeon's Mate to each Regiment, and the same pay wages and allowance Billeting and provisions, and the same premiums for supplying themselves with Arms and accoutrements Blankets and Knapsacks shall be given to them whilst in service of this Colony as were given and allowed by this Colony to the Troops raised by this Assembly in April 1775: and shall be under the same Laws and Regulations; and said Regiments when raised shall be holden untill the first day of January next unless sooner discharged, and shall be marched and Stationed from time to time as the Captain General shall order and direct according to the exigencies of publick affairs, and be subject to join the Continental Army

if ordered by the Captain General or Commander in Chief in which case both Officers and Soldiers shall be under the same Laws and Regulations, Pay Coages and allowances in all respects as the Troops in the Continental Army shall then be under and be subject to the same General Command during their junction with said Army. And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid That such Troops raised as aforesaid as shall neglect or be unable to furnish arms and accouter themselves for the premium aforesaid shall be furnished armed and accoutered in the same way and manner as the Troops raised by this assembly in July last were furnished and provided for.
This Assembly do appoint David Waterbury Esq. Colonel, Comfort Sage Esq. Lieutenant Colonel and Oliver Smith of Stonington Esq. Major of the Regiment now to be raised and stationed at and near New London.
This Assembly appoints.
Joseph Thomson of New Haven Captain, } Of a Company in a Regiment to be raised and stationed at and about New London and New Haven. Samuel Wilmott of New Haven. — 1 st Lieut t John Bradden of Milford — 2 d Lieut t Edward Siley of New Haven — Ensign

Jonathan Wells of Hartford — Captain David Johnson, East Windsor — 1 st Lieut. Howell Woodbridge, Plastonbury — 2 d Lieut. Roger Bull of Weatherfield — Ensign } Of a company
Abiel Pease Somers — Captain Thomas Abby Enfield — 1 st Lieut. Israel Converse, Stafford — 2 d Lieut. Abner Wood — Stafford — Ensign } Of a company 
At a General Assembly of the Governor and  company of the English colony of Connecticut in New  England in America held at Hartford in said colony  by special order of the Governor on the fourteenth day of  June, Annoq Domini, 1776. 
An act for raising two battalions to join the  Continental Army in Canada.
Whereas this Assembly have received a requisition from the Honorable Continental Congress for troops to reinforce the Continental army in different Departments Be it therefore Enacted by the Governor Council and Representatives in General Court Assembled and by the authority of the same. That two Battalions of

the Inhabitants of this Colony shall be immediately raised by voluntary Enlistment to join the continental army in the Northern Department, each Battalion to consist of one Colonel one Lieutenant Colonel one Major and eight companies with one Captain, two Lieutenants one Ensign, four Sergeants, four Corporals, one Drummer one Fifer and seventy nine privates to each Company and a Staff to consist of one Chaplain to said two Battalions and one Adjutant one Quarter Master one Surgeon and one Surgeons mate to each Battalion and to be holden in the Continental Service untill the first day of December next, and each able bodied effective man who shall voluntarily enlist into said service and sufficiently cloathe himself therefor shall receive a premium of six pounds Lawfull money, and every such man so enlisted as aforesaid who shall provide for himself a good blanket, Knapsack, Gun, Bayonet and Cartouch box to the acceptance of his Captain shall receive a further premium of one pound two shillings money therefore, and at the same rate and proportion for so many of the articles aforesaid as he shall so

furnish himself with as was allowed and given by this assembly to the Troops raised for the defence of this Colony in April 1775. and whilst in service shall be under the same General command Laws and regulations and entitled to the same pay wages, privileges and allowances as the Continental Troops are, and shall also receive one months pay in advance before he marches out of this Colony.
This Assembly do appoint Colonel Brastus Walcott Esq to be Colonel of the Regiment ordered to be raised by the last General Assembly and stationed at and near New London instead of David Waterbury Esq promoted.
This Assembly do appoint Samuel Mott Esq to be Lieutenant Colonel of the Regiment ordered to be raised by the last Assembly and stationed at at near New London instead of Cornfort Sage Esq promoted.
This Assembly do appoint the persons hereafter named to the respective offices hereinafter mentioned to take the command of the two Battalions

ordered by this Assembly to be raised to join the continental Army in the Northern Department, and his Honor the Governor is hereby desired, authorized and impowered to give commissions according to the form provided, and ordered: for each respective officers according to his office and rank, and warrants to such as are appointed on the Staffo viz —
This Assembly do appoint John Douglass Esq to be Colonel William Worthington Esq Lieut Colonel John Sumner Esq — Mayor. — ) of the first Battalion
This Assembly do appoint Aaron Stephens — Captain Isaac Turner — 1 st Lieut Moses Dudley Esq — 2 d Lieut Joseph Hylgard — Ensign ) of the first company of said Battalion
This Assembly do appoint John Harmon Esq — Captain Benjamin Harmon Esq — 1 st Lieut Nathaniel Pomeroy — 2 d Lieut Isaac Adams — Ensign ) of the second company in said Battalion

Whereas this Assembly at this present session passed an Act appointing Nathaniel Pomeroy Junr a first Lieut in Captain John Harmons Company in Colonel John Douglas Regiment, and Whereas this Assembly at their Sessions held at Hartford in May last appointed Thomas Abbe a first Lieut in Capt Abiel Pease Company in Colonel Waterburys Regiment, and as the exchanging the arrangement of said Officers would be greatly to the advantage of the public service viz, to appoint the said Nathaniel Pomeroy Junr to be a first Lieut. in Captain Pease Company and the said Thomas Abbe to be a first Lieut in Captain Harmons Company Be it Enacted by the Governor Councill and Representatives in General Court assembled and by the authority of the same that the aforesaid Acts referred to respecting the appointment of the said Pomeroy and Abbe to be Lieutenants be repealed and the same is hereby repealed accordingly. Whereupon this Assembly do appoint Thomas Abber of Enfield to be a first Lieutenant in Captain John Harmons Company in Col. John Douglass Regiment. This Assembly do appoint Nathaniel Pomeroy Junr. of Suffield to be a first Lieutenant in Captain Abiel Pease Company in Col. Waterburys Regiment.

Resolved by this Assembly that the commissions of the Officers nominated and appointed by this Assembly at their Session in May last shall bear date on the 10 th day of June 1776. and his Honor the Governor and the Secretary are desired and directed to sign the same filled up accordingly. —
Resolved by this Assembly that the commissions for the officers in the several Battalions ordered to be raised in this Colony at their present Sessions shall bear date the 20 th day of June 1776 and the Governor and Secretary are desired and directed to sign and issue the same accordingly.

State of Connecticut, ss. } OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE, }
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of record in this Office.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the Seal of said State, at Hartford this 18 th day of July A. D. 1853.
Ino. P. C. Mathew, Secretary of State.

Claim of Heirs of } Brief of testimony as to Martha Pomeroy } Date of Marriage.
The service of Capt. Pomeroy, and the fact that Martha Pomeroy was his wife, and afterwards his widow is admitted — for — an arrearage of pension has been granted when he is under the act of June 7 th 1838.
But it is claimed by the heirs, that they ought to recover under the act of July 4 th 1836. —
Because, as they say, the marriage of Capt. & Mrs. Martha Pomeroy took place before the expiration of the last term of service.
The last term of service proved, is that as Captain, in Col. Sam l Chapman Reg t of Militia, wh. marched to Rhode Island in Aug. 1778, and which continued about two months.
The question is — Did the marriage take place previous to August or Sept 1778?
The hypothesis of the claimants is, that the marriage occurred in 1777, either late in the spring or early in the fall afterwards.

It is to be remembered in the first place, it is in evidence that that there is no record evidence of the date of the marriage. The testimony which we offer is the best evidence we have, therefore.
1. Luther Loomis - Town Clerk, Safford - Mears - that on p. 202 Vol. 1 B. D. & M. is following entry - "Nathaniel Poirroy & Martha Spencer were married -" date being entirely omitted - that the entry is apparently ancient, and in the hand writing of Alexander King, who was town clerk continuously from 1775 to 1802, at which last date he died. That this is the only entry on the Town Records, and the only entry of which he has knowledge." (Vid. L. Loomis Dep. No 1 - original file) 2. Bela Spencer born in 1771 & brought up in the same neighborhood where Capt. Poirroy lived, testifies, that Capt. Poirroy married his double cousin, Martha Spencer - that the marriage was before the close of the war, & he thinks before the R. I. Expedition (Vid. B. Spencer's dep. original file)

3. Lucy Austin in her 1 st depl. original file Mearns, that she was born in 1769, (in fact May 10 th ) lived all her life a near neigh- bor to Capt. Pomroy. Remember hear- ing it said, in the day and time of it, (she was then in her tenth year,) that Capt. Pomroy had gone with his company, (many of them neighbors,) to Rhode Island. She says "He was at this time a mar- ried man* He married Martha Shen- cer. I recollect the time of the wed- ding." She then goes on to say, that her father and mother went to the wed- ding, (but a few rods distance,) leaving her in charge of the home and younger children. She says this was in the first part of the war - when she could not have been more than eight years old. This would make the year 1777. She says - be- fore her mother went to the wedding, in order that it should be less lonesome for the children, she built up a fire in the front room - so that it was of course a time of year for cool weather - Miss Austin also gave a 2 d deposition, at a subsequent time, (the details of which are not distinctly recollected by me, and she is at this time too ill to talk with) - said same

on file - but I think she fixes the date of the marriage in fall of 1777, by the circumstance, that at the time of the wedding, when she was left with the charge of the younger children, her brother Joel Austin was a baby in arms - and that he was born Feby 21 st 1777. At any rate, that is the date of Joel Austin's birth, as appears by the family bible. And if he was a child in arms at the time of Captain Pomroy's death wedding, the wedding must have been before August 1778 - and, as it was cove weather, it is probably the fact, that it was in the fall of 1777. - for
By other testimony it appears that the first child of Capt. & Mrs. Martha Pomroy was born while he was absent in Rhode Island during the term of service. Suppose the 1 st of Sept. 1778 - In three days the birth of the first child varied very little from 9 months from the wedding-day. This would make this wedding in about Dec. 1 st 1777. Joel Austin born in Feby 1777 wd be a child in arms, and yet old enough to be left in charge of his little sister, well

along in her ninth year, and other younger children for her company and of interest, while their parents were at a wedding, a few rods distance off, in sight of the light in the room where they had left their children.
4. Mrs. Martha Chaplin testifies in her dep. N o 1. (original file) that she is the daughter of Captain & Mrs. Martha Chaplin. That in the time of the last war with England, her 1 st husband, Warren Smith, was a soldier in the Northern Army - that during his ab- sence she staid at her parents house. That her mother used to sympathize with her, and tell her that she knew how to feel for her, because her own hus- band, (Capt. Pomeroy) had been ab- sent from her in the army, ten months in the whole, during the Re- volution, after their marriage.
In her 2 d dep. she means that there is no record of births deaths and mar- riages of her father's family - That she has the old family bible in her possession, and that it contains no such record.

That her brother Thaddeus Pomroy died 20 years ago - viz: 21 st Feby 1829 - that he was 46 years old the January be- fore his death - so that he was born Jan. 1783 - that she has heard both her parents say, that there was a daughter, who died at the age of 6 years, who was four years and some months older than Thaddeus. That Thaddeus was 2 years old when she died - 4 years from Jan. 1783 brings us to Jan. 1779 - The "nine months" will carry us back to May 1778 - and this is enough for our pur- pose - The law will presume the nine months was in wedlock, on well settled principles.
But the daughter was some months over four years older than Thaddeus - If we suppose she was 5 mos. (4 yrs 25 months) - that we make her birth in about Sept. 1 st 1778 - and this makes this circumstance tally precisely with the other testimony in the case.
The testimony of Robert Heathway and Henrietta Heathway corrobor- ate Mrs. Chaplin with respect to this last mentioned circumstance, and

agree that there is no family or public record of Births Deaths & marriages.
5. Mrs. Chaplin, Mrs. Hennetta Heathway, & Mr. Robert Heathway, all testifying, that several years before Mrs. Martha Pomroy's death, there was some talk in the family of procuring a pension for her - that the old lady very naturally talked at that time a good deal about old times - that she said, when her husband, Capt. Pomroy, went with his company to Rhode Island, he left her $30 in silver, which she hid in her straw bed. Mrs. Chaplin thinks in an old glove for a purse. She says, that when she gave her first cup. this did not occur to her, but it being suggested by Mr. Heathway she remembers it perfectly.
6. Ebenezer Chaplin means - that he was always a near neighbor to Captain Pomroy - that his own father, (a revolutionary soldier and a pensioner,) and Capt. Pomroy, used frequently to talk over old times when they got together. That he has heard

Capt. Pomroy tell of his going to Rhode Island with his company - that his wife was then in the family way - and near to being confined and that the child was born while he was gone. (The little girl doubtless who died at 6 yrs of age)
7. Finally - Deacon David Hale (who is well known to Mr. Waldo) testifies that Capt. Pomroy with whom he was acquainted used to joke about the fact that one of his children was born while he was absent in the army.
Can there be a doubt that the wedding was in 1777.

At a Court of Probate held at Suffield within & for the District of Suffield on the 17 th day of February 1855.
Present Geo. Williston Judge This Court granted administration on the estate of Martha Perry for many of Suffield within said district. deceased, to Calvin W. Phillips of said Suffield, who accepted of said trust & entered into bonds of Two Thousand dol- lars, for a faithful discharge of said trust - and said bond is signed by Daniel W. Norton & Robert Hathaway as surety -
Certified from Record Geo. Williston Judge
The above and foregoing is a true copy of Record. In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court this 20 th day of February A.D. 1855.
Wm. L. Goodrich Clerk of Probate for the District of Suffield.

Claim of the Heirs of Martha Pomroy Depm of D.W. Norton

I Daniel W. Norton of Suffield in the County of Hartford & State of Connecticut being first duly sworn do depose and say,
That on the 7 th day of March A.D. 1829, I was appointed by the Court of Probate for the District of Suffield, Administrator on the Estate of Ebenezer Pomeroy, then lately deceased. The said Ebenezer, was the brother of Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy, who was then alive and resided in Suffield. The Widow of Ebenezer Pomeroy, soon after my appointment delivered to me the papers of her husband,
Among them were two deeds, one dated January 16 th 1799, from the said Capt. Nath l Pomeroy to the said Ebenezer, consideration 46£. Recorded Suffield Records Vol 8 th page 207; The other from the same to the same and dated 7 th February 1799, consideration 14£, Recorded in Windsor Records Vol. 20 th fol o 87. Both of these deeds are and were authentic & the signatures are doubtless genuine.
Some two or three months since G. S. Phillips Esq. of this town enquired of me whether I could not look among the old papers of the Estate of Ebenezer Pomeroy deceased, & see if I could not find some bearing the signature of Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy.

I complied with his request and found the deeds I have specified, which I have given him permission to send to Washington as evidence in a claim of the heirs of Capt. Pomeroy's widow, for a pension, arrearage. Since they first came into my possession in 1829, they have always remained with me until now. and further the deponent saith not.
Daniel H. Norton.
The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed before me on the 8 th day of November A.D. 1854 and I further certify that the same is drawn in the handwriting of the deponent himself and that I have no interest in the claim which said deposition is taken as evidence
G. W. Weston Judge of Probate.

I William L. Loomis Clerk of the Court of Probate within and for the district of Suffield do hereby certify that the foregoing certificate signature purporting to be that of George Williston is his own genuine signature and that I am well acquainted with his handwriting - and that said Willis- ton is the Judge of the said Court of Probate duly elected qualified and sworn to leave from the 4 th day of July 1854 for one year.
In witness whereof I have here- unto set my hand and the Seal of said Court this 8 th day of No- vember A.D. 1854
Wm L. Loomis. Clerk of the Court of Probate

Stafford County ss In Suffolk January 16 th 1799 Parsonage of Northfield Pottery, Essex and Siler and acknowledged in open of the within Instrument, to be his free act and Deed before me Sam l  the Grafton Dean
Chas n Penroye Dead from North Farm This January 23 rd 1799 and recorded in Suffolk 8 th Book of Records of Land pag 207 per Alex r Strong Reg d .
Free & void

KNOW all Men by these Presents, That Nathaniel Pomroy of Suffield in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut
in Consideration of forty Six Pounds Lawfull money to me by Ebenezer Pomroy of Suffield afore said paid
the Receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge, and for divers other good causes and considerations me hereunto moving, DO, for my self and my Heirs, Remise, Release, Grant, Bargain, Sell and forever Quit Claim unto the said Ebenezer Pomroy
one certain Piece of land situated in Suffield aforesaid Wast of Centary Road being Part of the Estate of my Honored father Nathaniel Pomroy the Bounds as follows namely North on land of Amos Pomroy East on the High Way - South on the granted land West on Land lately Belonging to Sam l Spencer Deed for South Partington Reference to be Had to the Distribution of said De Estate also all the Right that I have in the Dwelling houses that was my Honored father and is ought to me by the Distribution of said Estate
Together with all the Estate, Right, Title, Interest, Use, Property, Claim & Demand whatsoever, of the said Ebenezer Pomroy  Nathaniel Pomroy which I now have, or at any Time hereafter had, of, in, and to the aforementioned Premises, with the Appurtenances, or to any Part thereof, or which at any Time hereafter has been held, used, occupied or enjoyed as Part or Parcel of the same.
To HAVE and to HOLD all the afore-granted and bargained Premises, with the Appurtenances, to him the said Ebenezer Pomroy his Heirs and Assigns forever, with the Reversion and Reversions, Remainder and Remainders thereof; or any Part or Parcel thereof, for- ever: So that neither I the said Nathaniel Pomroy nor
Heirs, nor any other Person or Persons claiming from or under or them, or in the Name, Right or Stead of me or them, shall or will, by any Way or Means, Have, Claim, Challenge or Demand any Estate, Right, Title or Interest of, in and to the aforesaid Premises, with the Appurtenances, or any Part or Parcel thereof, forever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I the said Nathaniel
have hereunto set my Hand and Seal this Sixteenth Day of January in the Year of our LORD One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety nine
Signed, sealed and delivered
in Presence of us, Carloe King Sam l Hale
Nat l Pomroy

Nathaniel Pomroy Deed to Ebenezer Pomroy

To All people to whom these presents shall come greeting Know ye that I Nathl l Pomroy of Suffield In the State of Connecticut for the consideration of fourteen pounds Lawful Money Rec d to my full satisfaction of Eben s Pomroy of Suffield do give grant Bargain sell and confirm unto the said Eben s Pomroy and his heirs and assigns for ever one Piece of land In Windsor in sa d -county Containing about fourteen acres be it more or less said land Bounding as follows that is North on Paul Rising South on Capt s Yeams Hoeses west on Silverms Grasveld East on Stephens Road
As have and to hold the above granted and Bargained Premises with the appurtenances thereof unto him the said Eben s Pomroy his Heirs and assigns for ever to him and their own proper use and behoof and also to the said Nathl l Pomroy so for my self and my heirs Executors and Administrators Consent with the said Eben s Pomroy his heirs and assigns That at and until the defeasance of these presents I am well seized of the Premises as a good and leaseable Estate in fee simple and have good right to sell and Bargain the same in manner and form as is above written and That the same be free of all Incumbencies whatsoever and further more I the said Nathl l Pomroy do by these presents bind my self & my heirs for ever with warrant and defend the above granted and Bargained Premises to him the said Eben s his heirs and assigns against all Claims and demands whatsoever in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the seventh Day of Feb y in the year our Lord 1799
signed seal and Delivered Nathl l Pomroy
In Presence of Amos Pomroy Shad s Spencer

Hartford County ss Suffolk February 10th 1799 Parsonly appeared Nathaniel Pomroy Siner and also of the within Instrument and acknowledging the same to be his free act and deed before me Sam l Hall Justice Peace
February the 2 nd Day Anno Dom 1799 Personally appeared Then Rec d and at Large Recorded the above and within Written Deed in Windsor 20 th Book of Town Records of Land Fol o 87
Jeff Henry Atty n Register
Nathaniel Pomroy
Deed to
Ebenezer Pomroy

Claim of the Heirs of Martha Pomroy Brief
C. W. Philles - atty. Sullies County

(This case Mr. Waldo gave me leave to request the Examiner to refer to him)
Claim of Martha Chaplin and Henrietta Hatheway.
General Statement.
The claimants in this case are the only surviving children of Mrs. Martha Pomroy, late of Suffield, Hartford County Conn t , now deceased. The claimants & their brother, Nathaniel Pomroy jr., now deceased, were the only surviving children of their mother at the time of her death. The children of Nathaniel Pomroy jr. reside in Suffield, are aware of the application for a pension, and would have signed it if it had been convenient at the time to do so.
Mrs. Martha Pomroy was the widow of Capt. Nathaniel Pomroy, late of said Suffield, who, it is claimed, served at least two periods or terms of service in the Revolutionary War, as follows. At New London, and also, (probably,) in the campaign and at the battles near New York in September and the fall of 1776, from the 10 th of June 1776 to the 3 rd of January 1777, as a first lieutenant

in Capt. Abiel, (or Abel) Pease's company in Col. Erastus Wolcott's Regiment of enlisted troops, raised by the General Assembly of Connecticut, at their May Session 1776, to serve as coast guards - And also in August and September of the year 1778 as a captain in Col. Samuel Chapman's Regiment of Militia, during the Expedition to Rhode Island of that year, for, (probably,) two months. The application also states that there were other terms of service - but the declarants admit their inability to prove them, and their ignorance of dates, officers names and other important details - The claim therefore rests upon the two terms of service which are specified - viz: the one at New London, being as a lieutenant, for six months and twenty three days - The other as a captain for about two months.
Form of Declaration, Certificates, Depositions, Power of Attorney &c. &c.
1. The declaration is made at great length and sworn to, before George Williston, Esq., Judge of the Court of Probate for the District of Suffield - a court of record having a seal. Judge Williston attests to the fact that the applicants subscribed and

made oath to the declaration, and (I think,) adds a certificate of some facts within his own knowledge. viz: the date of Mrs. Pomeroy's death, and that the declarants are her only surviving children. There are also appended the depositions of Luther Loomis, (Town clerk) and Daniel W. Norton, (Justice of the Peace) both old residents of the Town, to the fact of the identity of the declarants. W m L. Loomis Clerk of the Court of Probate certifies that Geo. Williston is the Judge of said Court and affixes the seal of the court to his certificate.
2 The depositions sent with the application, (except as above,) were taken before the said Daniel W. Norton, who certifies that they are in his own handwriting, and that he has no interest in the claim. W. W. Eaton Clerk of Hfd C. Court certifies to the fact that Norton at the times of taking said depositions was a J. P. duly qualified &c. &c.
3 A power of attorney to C. W. Phillips signed by the applicants and duly acknowledged before said Norton J. P. is filed with the declaration.

The Evidence.
In order that every part of the evidence may be readily understood, a brief explanatory statement is here submitted viz:
There have been three Nathaniel Pomroys who have been in life and have died in Suffield since 1770 - three and no more - respectively, father, son and son's son - The father and son were both living at the time of the breaking out of the war. The father was then probably a man well advanced in years. He kept a tavern in what is now called South Street, in Suffield, and was universally known as "Landlord Pomroy," deriving his title from his calling in life, as was the fashion in those days. All this appears in the testimony of Bela Spencer and Lucy Austin, who are very aged people, and who well remember Landlord Pomroy, his son Capt. Pomroy, and his son Nathaniel jr, who died recently in this town, at by no means an advanced age. Deacon Hale's, Mr. Norton's and Mrs. Chaplin's testimony is to the same effect. The date of Landlord Pomroy's death was probably not far from 1781, as administration was taken out

on his estate in that year.
The name of his widow was Abigail , which will further serve to distinguish him from his son, Capt Nathaniel, whose widow's name was Martha .
I. Identity - It may be thought at first that the question of identity is rendered more obscure and difficult, by the circumstance that the grandfather father and brother of the declarants bore the same name. But it is believed that an examination of the evidence in the case will convince any one that the Nathaniel Pomroy who was called Captain Pomroy, the husband of Martha Pomroy and the father of the declarants, was, beyond all doubt, the one who performed the revolutionary service set forth in the declaration -
1. as for the Captain's son he was far too young to have served in the Revolution having scarcely been born at the close of the war.
2 His (the son's) father, and the father of the applicants, always bore the title of Captain until his death.
3 The Captain was always reputed to be

a Revolutionary soldier and officer—According to the testimony of Deacon Hale and Mr. Norton, (both of whom are well known to Mr. Waldo, Mr. Fowle and Mr. Pratt,) he was reputed to have served as an officer during the greater part of the war—and at Fourth of July Celebrations he was accustomed to take the lead, (either on account of superior age or rank,) of the procession of veterans. This could not have been his father, Landlord Pomroy, who died before 1790, and consequently before Mr. Norton's birth, and when Deacon Hale was but a child of less than five years old.
4 Miss Lucy Austin, who lived a near neighbor to the Pomroys, father and son, and who at the close of the war was at least 14 years of age, swears that she remembers that Capt. Pomroy, the father of the applicants, was absent from home a great part of the time during the war, and that it was said he was gone to the army. Once that he was gone to Rhode Island in command of a company, composed of neighbors—at this time she was about 9 years of age. She swears also

to the general reputation since the war. 5 Bela Spencer, who was a double cousin of Capt. Pormroy's wife, lived with the Capt. as a hired man, just after the close of the war. Spencer was at that time 16 or 17 years of age. He swears that he used then to hear him and has since heard him tell of his service in the war. Spencer swears that he remembers hear- ing, in the day and time of it, that Capt. Pormroy had gone in the Rhode Island Expedition. The aged witness may be mis- taken in this, but not necessarily so. He was about seven years old. The company that Capt. Pormroy commanded was a militia company, composed of neigh- bors. Capt. Pormroy himself was a near neighbor and kinsman, and the com- motion and the anxiety excited by this occurrence may well have made a deep impression on a child's mind. But even if Mr. Spencer mistakes and thinks he remembers what he has heard of since, it goes to show what was the general reputation in the com- munity in Captain Pormroy's life time.
6 Mrs. Chaplin also testifies that

her father Capt. Pomroy used to have the reputation of having been a revolutionary officer; that he had commissions which, though he preserved them with jealous care in his life time, were lost or destroyed after his death. She says too that he used to relate incidents of his service in the army, and she remembers that he spoke, among others, of the two terms on which claim is made in the declaration. These communications were chiefly made to her at a time, and under circumstances when he would have been apt to enlarge upon such subjects; and she on her part disposed to listen with attention. The witness' husband was a soldier in the army, under Gen. Brown, during the war of 1812. She remained, during his absence, at her father's house. It was natural that the old soldier should "fight his battles over again," and that his daughter, instead of finding the oft told tales as prosy as they had been, went to be showed "Devouringly incline" to the narratives of a soldier's life and campaigns.

7 On the other hand it is safe to say that "Landlord Pomroy" never performed service in the Revolution, at least as an officer. If he had ever held, even in the militia, and especially if he had held office in a corps that had seen actual service, his title of Landlord would have been eclipsed by some military prefix. But in fact he never bore a military title. All of the witnesses concur in this. His son, the captain, in the deed to his son, herewith enclosed, speaks of his father as his "hon'd father, Nathaniel Pomroy." If the old gentleman had been entitled to a handle to his name, the filial pride of the son would have caused him to set it forth. The force of this argument will be appreciated by any New England man.
Besides, Lucy Austin & Bela Spencer both concur in the belief, that if the Landlord ever served, it must have been briefly and without office or distinction.
They swear, that though neighbors, they never heard of his having served, and Mrs. Chaplin also says that if her grandfather ever served it never came to her ears.
8- The Nathaniel Pomroy who executed the three deeds herewith enclosed

was beyond all question the husband of Martha Pomroy, and the father of the applicants. It so happens that in the quit claim, (N o 2,) the names of all three of the Nathaniel Pomroys appear, and it is patent on the face of this instrument that the Nathaniel Pomroy who is the releasor , is not the grandson, for the grandson is the releasee , to whom the conveyance is made; and the land conveyed is described by the releasor as being a part of the Estate inherited from his "hon'd father, Nathaniel Pomroy, late of said Suffield deceased," who as it appears in the next line, had been in his life time the husband of Abigail Pomroy - that is to say - Landlord Pomroy. This deed is found where we should naturally expect to find it - in the possession of the widow of the releasee - the grandson and the last of the name. The other deeds, it is equally clear, are executed by the Captain, the father of the applicants, for like the quit claim both are dated long after the Landlord's death, and both are dated long before the grandson had capacity to execute a deed.

viz in 1799 - Now all three of these deeds are evidently subscribed by the same hand, and as evidently the hand that executed them, was the same that had subscribed the name at the foot of the "Pay Roll of Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy's Compa- ny" which is herewith enclosed. Vid. p 21 post .
9. Vid. pages 15-16-17- post .
If therefore the service on which the claim of the applicants is founded was performed at all, there can be no doubt that the person by whom it was per- formed was the father of the ap- licants, and not their grandfather or brother, who each bore the same name.
II d  Service - 1 st Period.
The claim of the declarants with respect to the first period of service is as follows. That at the June session of the General Assembly of Connecti- cut, 1776, Nathaniel Pomeroy of Suff- ield the father of the applicants was appointed a 2 d lieutenant in Capt. John Hammons Company, in Col. John Douglass' battalions, being

one of his battalions ordered to be raised to join the continental army in Canada; that he, being authorized thereto by act of Assembly, afterwards, during the same session, exchanged with Thomas Abbe, of Enfield, 1 st lieut. in Capt. Abiel Pease's company, in Col. Erastus Wolcott's Regiment of Coast Guards, which at the previous May session had been ordered to be raised, to be stationed at or near New London, until the 1 st of Jan. 1777 - and that he was thereupon appointed 1 st lieut. in said last mentioned corps - and performed service in the same from the 20 th of June 1776 to the 3 d of Jan'y. 1777 - being a period of six months and twenty three days in the whole.
To prove this claim they offer the following evidence - viz:
1 st A copy certified to be correct by the Secretary of State of Conn. of the act of the Gen. Assembly, May Sess. 1776, raising two regiments of troops by voluntary enlistment - one of which was to be stationed at or near New London, to serve as Coast Guards, to remain

in service to 1 st Jan. 1777.
2 o A certified copy of an act of Gen. Assembly May session 1776, appointing officers to the abovementioned corps. To the Regt. to be stationed at or near New London was appointed David Waterbury, jr. Colonel - Abiel Pease of Somers Captain of a Company - Thomas Abby of Enfield 1 st lieut. &c. &c.
3 o A certified copy of an act of Gen. Assembly, June session, 1776, raising two battalions of troops by enlistment to join the continental army in Canada, to be holden in service until 1 st day of December 1776.
4 th A certified copy of an act of Gen. Assembly, June session 1776, appointing Erastus Wolcott to be Colonel of the Regiment ordered to be raised at the May session previous to be stationed at or near New London, vice David Waterbury jr. promoted to the command of the two Canada battalions, with rank of Gen. (Gen.)
5 th A certified copy of an act of Gen. Assembly, June session 1776, appointing officers to said two Canada battalions - viz to 1 st battalion John Douglass, Colonel, &c. &c.

To 2 d company, John Harman p. Captain, Benjamin Harman p. 1 st lieut. Nathaniel Pomeroy 2 d lieut. Joel Adams ensign - &c. &c.
6 th A certified copy of an act of Gen. Assembly June Session 1776, authorizing the exchange of Thomas Abbe 1 st lieut. of Capt. Abiel Pease's company in Col. Waterbury's Regt. (afterwards Col. Wolcotts. See 4 th p. 13 th ante.) with Nathan- iel Pomeroy junior of Capt. John Harman's Company, in Colonel Doug- lass' Regt. - rescinding their former appointments and appointing anew Thomas Abbe 1 st lieut. in Capt. Har- man's Company and Nathaniel Pomeroy jr. of Suffield , 1 st lieut. in Capt. Pease's company.
7 th A certified copy of an act of Gen. Assem- bly, June Sess. 1776 regulating the date of Officers commissions, appointed at the May & June sessions 1776 - Those appointed to Regts. raised at May Session, to date June 10 th , and those appointed to Regts raised at June Session to date June 20 th 1776.
8 th Certificate of Comptroller that no Pay Roll of Capt. Abiel Pease's Com-

pany in Col. Erastus Wolcotts Reg- iment is in the office of the Comp. Also that in one of the Pay Table Books, there is an entry, under date of Jan. 10 th 1777, of a charge of pay and Subsistence of Capt A. Pease's Company, in Col. Wolcotts Regt, from June 10 th 1776 to Jan'y 3 d 1777.
By this evidence it is proved—
1 st That the declarants offer the best evidence in their power. The Comptroller certifies that there is no payroll of the Company preserved in which it is claimed the service was performed 2 d That the father of the declarants was duly appointed a 1 st lieut in this company—
It is perfectly evident that the Lieut. Pomroy who was appointed (by exchange with Thos. Abbe) 1 st lieut. in Capt Abiel Pease's Company, was the same person who had been before appointed 2 d lieut in Capt Harnois Co. In the list of appointments to the Canada battalions, this officer is called " Nathaniel Pomroy ", with- out the "jr.", and his residence is not given. But the act authorizing

his exchange into Capt Pease's Co. Says - "Whereas this Assembly at their present session passed an act appointing Nathaniel Pomroy junior a first lieutenant in Capt John Harnis's Company in Col. Douglass Regiment &c &c" - and the last clause of this act reads as follows - "This Assembly do appoint Nathaniel Pomroy jr. of Suffield, to be a first lieutenant in Capt Abiel Pease's Company in Col. Waterbury's Regiment &c. "(that is to say Col. Wolcott's, as Waterbury was promoted and Wolcott appointed in his place.) At this time it will be borne in mind that there were but two Nathaniel Pomroys, of Suffield, viz: the grandfather of the declarants, Landlord Pomroy, and his son, their father - (vid. depositions of Bela Spencer Lucy Austin et al.) Of course the younger man, their father, for whose services they lay claim as heirs of his widow, their mother, Martha Pomroy, was the junior of the two. The Gen. Assembly did not affix this addition to his name on appointing him lieutenant in Harnis's Company - for it might

will happen that such an omission w d be made. But certain it is that this person was nevertheless Nathaniel Pomroy, jr , for he is afterwards called so twice, in the act authorizing the exchange - and though a man entitled to a "jr", might be apt to lose it on leav- ing home, one who was not so denomi- nated at home w d not be likely to acquire an addition of this sort abroad. To sum up then, in a few words.
It is proven that the Nathaniel Pomroy who was appointed to Capt Harrison's Company was the same person as the Nathaniel Pomroy jr., afterwards appointed to Capt Pease's Co., for the act authorizing the exchange expressly mentions and counts upon the identity - showing it beyond a doubt.
Also that this same person was the father of the applicants and the husband of Martha Pomroy their mother, for, according to the testimony at that time he was the only person whom the term " Nathaniel Pomroy j r of Saffield" would correctly describe and apply to.

3 d That he served in this company a term of six months and twenty-three days.
Evidence of the appointment of an officer or enlistment of a soldier is at least prima facie proof of service, for the period of enlistment, or during the known service of the corps to which the appointment had been made; and when this is shown to be the best evidence that can be procured, and in the absence of all proof to the contrary, it should be sufficient. But in this case we have something more. Here there was not only an appointment , but the exchange shows that Lieut. Pomroy intended to serve, and that the Gen Assembly expected him to do so, so confidently as to cause them to repeal one act and pass a new one. The original appointment, standing alone, wd be prima facie evidence, but being made as it was, it clearly shows that the appointee accepted. The exchange wd not have been made if there had not been an intention to serve the full term,

and in fact the full term was served by the corps , as is proved by the entry in the Pay Table Book, under date Jan. 10 th 1777, and the proof is little less than positive that Lieut. Pormoy served with his regiment. Besides, there is the testimony of witnesses in corroboration (viz. Bela Spencer et al) meaning to what they have heard Capt. Pormoy say.
2 d Period of Service. This is proved by the original payroll of Capt. Pormoy's company, signed by his own hand. This shows a service in the Rhode Island Expedition in 1778, as a captain of militia, in Col. Saml. Chapman's Regiment, but for what length of time the declarants cannot aver with certainty. They supposed how- ever, that there was a rule or custom existing in the Pension Office, of calling or rating the service in the Rhode Island Expedition a certain length of time, in the absence of definite ev- idence as to length. And if not - the amount of pay set to the men's names on the roll, taken in con- nection with the rate of pay allowed.

(if known,) and the known value of Connecticut currency at the time, would afford, (they supposed,) something like reliable data.
The authenticity of the Pay Roll is proven—
1 st By inspection—As the original document is herewith forwarded, it is expected that it will prove itself. It appears authentic. It would be impossible to forge such a paper.
2 d By the depositions of Daniel W. Norton, Esq., and of Mr. Albert King, which give an account of the finding of this document. It was discovered on a shelf, where it had lain undisturbed for 40 years. Albert King says that this shelf was put up forty years since, and at the time the papers with which this roll was found were taken from an old chest by his father, and put on the shelf. The house is a very ancient one, and was inhabited during the Revolutionary war by Mr. Thaddeus King, the grandfather of Albert King, a man accustomed to public business, and who, as constable and tax collector, also acted as a sort of quasi militia paymaster — Mr. Norton's testimony

is above suspicion, he being an old resident a man of wealth and respectability, a justice of the peace, and is well known to the Com. of Pensions. King, though poor, is certified to be entirely reliable with respect to veracity.
That the Nathaniel Pomroy who signed this payroll was the same person who was afterwards the father of the declarants is proven
1 st By comparing the signature on the payroll with those on the deeds herewith enclosed.
The authenticity of the deeds themselves is shown - 1 st by their appearance - 2 d by the certificate of their record endorsed on each by the town clerk and 3 d so far as the two Suffield deeds are concerned, by the deposition (N o 2) of Luther Loomis, town clerk.
I have already shown - pp. 9-10-11 - ante that the person who executed these deeds must have been the father of the declarants. One of them happens to contain the names of all three of the Nathaniel Pomroys. The deeds is executed by the Captain to his son, the brother of the declarants, and conveys

land inherited from his father, the "Land lord," being a part of the dower land of his mother, Abigail . That this is so also appears from the deposition of Mrs. Fanny Pomroy, the widow of the grand son father who found the deed among her husband's papers.
The other deeds were also found by Mr. Norton, who came by them as administrator on the estate of Ebenezer Pomroy, the grantee in the deeds, who was the brother of the Captain and died many years since, before 1830.
Now it is plain to the sight that the signatures on the payroll and in each of the deeds were made by the same hand, though at times many years apart. The signature on the payroll was made in 1778, when the writer was a young man. The last of the deeds was executed in 1815, when he was an old man, distributing his estate, in his life time, among his children, and the lapse of years shows itself in the difference between the signatures, but the handwriting is unmistakably the same.

The "N" is made in the same manner in each of the four signatures, beginning with a little curl, (c) at the lower left hand corner, and ending with a slight flourish as the letter is finished. This initial is left to stand by itself in each of the four signatures. Then a new start is taken to form the letters "eth", which are all connected - the "h" ending bluntly and without a turn-up at the bottom. Then follows in each case a "ll". The initial P is peculiar. It is not made in this way (P) at one dash of the pen, but by two strokes - thus (P) but instead of being made by beginning the stem at the bottom - so as  it  is , it is commenced at the top of the stem by an upward stroke or hair line - thus (I) and the top is added afterwards making the letter appear so (P) instead of so (P) as is usual with this style of making the letter P. The initial P in each of the four signatures is made in the same way - then in each follows the other letters of the name - each made separately and left standing with spaces

between them; the "m" left blunt without being turned up; the "r" in each being made alike, and the "y" turned in the same manner in each case. In fine, there can be no doubt that all four signatures are made by the same hand.
Mrs. Chaplin swears that the signature on the pay roll is her father's handwriting, with which she was well acquainted.
Marriage and Widowhood of the Mother of the Claimants.
It is claimed that the declarants should recover under the act of July 4 th 1836.
That Capt. Nathaniel Poirroy and Martha Spencer the parents of the declarants were married before the expiration of the last period of service is proved by 1 st Luther Loomis, town clerk, who testifies (dep. No 1 - original file) that on the 202 d p. Vol I, Records of Births, Deaths & Marriages of the Town of Suffield, is an entry of the marriage of Capt. Nathaniel Poirroy and Martha Spencer, but the date is left blank. This must

be however an ancient record, for it is in the handwriting of Dr Alexander King, who died in 1802, having been town clerk continuously from 1775 to his death
2 d Bela Spencer, born in 1771 and brought up in the same neighborhood where Capt. Pomroy lived, testifies that Capt. Pomroy married his (Spencer's) double cousin, Martha Spencer, before the close of the war, and he thinks he must have been married at the time of the Rhode Island Expedition.
3 Lucy Austin, a neighbor of Capt. Pomroy, born in 1769, testifies that she remembers hearing it said, at the time, that Capt. Pomroy had gone on the Rhode Island Expedition, and that a good many neighbors had gone with him in his company. She says "He was at this time a married man. He married Martha Spencer. I recollect the time of the wedding" she then goes on to say that her father and mother went to the wedding, but a few was distant, leaving her in charge of the house and younger children. She says this was in the "forepart of

the war", when she could have been not more than eight years old. If Miss Austin is correct the date of the marriage is 1777 - she says before  when her mother went to the wedding she built up a fire for her in the front room, so that it must have been cool weather. Probably Capt. Pomeroy was married soon after his return from his tour of service at New London, as 1st lieut. of Capt. Pease's Co., which was in Jan. 1777.
4 th The testimony of Mrs. Chaplin proves that her father served in the army after his marriage. In the time of last war with England Mrs. Chaplin was the wife of Warren Smith, who was a soldier in the army under Gen. Brown. She lived with her parents during his absence, and she says that her mother used frequently to sympathize with her, and tell her that she knew how to feel for her, and that her father had been absent ten months in the army, during the Revolution, after she, (Mrs. Pomeroy,) was married to him.

5 Deacon Hale testifies that Capt e Pomroy used to joke about the fact that one of his children was born while he was absent in the army.
The date of the death of Capt e Nathaniel Pomroy - May 17 th 1831 is proved by the depositions of Luther Loomis, Town Clerk, Mrs. Chaplin, Lucy Austin and others - and that his widow survived him and died on the 16 th of Jan y . 1840 without having married again is proved by almost every deposition filed with the case.
It may occur as an objection, or a circumstance requiring explanation, that Mrs. Pomroy did not apply during her lifetime for herself. Mrs. Chaplin's deposition explains why she did not. Richard Warner, and other, old soldiers, themselves pensioners, who had served with or under Capt e Pomroy, used to urge her to apply, saying that they could testify to service enough performed by Capt e Pomroy to entitle his widow to a full or captain's pension - but the old lady was

infirm and feeble, another evidence of a son, Nathaniel, dissuaded her from spending any money in trying to get a pension, urging, as an argument against the attempt, that if a pension could have been obtained, her father would have got it for himself in his lifetime. The folly of this argument is seen at once, on learning the date of the Captain's death - May 17 th 1831 - before the passage of the act of June 7 th 1832; but it was effectual in hindering Mrs. Pomroy from applying for a pension - Since then the veterans who offered their testimony with respect to Capt. Pomroy's service have every one died.

I Henrietta Hathaway of Suffield Hartford County & State of Connecticut of lawful age, do depose and say. That I am the daughter, of Capt. Nathaniel & Martha Pomeroy, am now fifty one years old last august, and am one of the claimants for a pension in the case of Martha Pomeroy now under consider- ation, at the Pension Office.
At the time of my father death I was about twenty eight years of age, always resided in his family and was very intimate being with him being the youngest of the family, and being at home. I well remember that my father would talk over his revolutionary matters I have frequently heard him say he was at New-London - Horseneck White Plains & Rhode Island; that he commanded a company to Rhode Island how long he served at any of these places I cannot say. several months at some of these places.
I have frequently heard my mother (that is Martha Pomeroy) say, and I remem- ber distinctly, that there was a daugh- ter being my eldest sister, who died

at the age of six years, who was four years and some months older than my brother Thaddeus, that my brother Thaddeus was two years old when she died; and that she was over six years old when she died.
I also recollect the time distinctly after my father's death, and after my marriage with Mr Robert Hattaway, he talked about getting a pension for Mother, went and talked with Richard Warner who was an old soldier & pensioner from the undertaking but was discouraged by my brother Nathaniel, that at that time my mother talked very much about getting a pension, and about my father's going to New London to Rhode Island and other places in the service, and that at the time or just before he left for Rhode Island, he left with her thirty dollars in silver, which she put into something, and put in the straw-bed under the feather bed on which she slept. I remember this clearly from the circumstance of her saying she was left at this time

with a woman in her family, as such who was not very bright, and I further depose and say that there is no family record of my father's family of births deaths and marriages, in the posses- sion of any of his descendants, and I would further say that my brother Theodas died twenty-six years ago this month, and was forty six years of age the January before his death, which was in 1829.
And further the deponent saith not Henrietta Hetherway
The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed by said deponent before me this 20 th day of February A.D. 1855. I further certify that I am well ac- quainted with said Henrietta Hetherway and that her reputation for truth and veracity is good, and that she is fully entitled to credit. I also fur- -ther certify that the foregoing deposition is in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim which it is intended to support.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace for Hartford County.

The deposition of Ebeneser Chaplin of Suffield County of Hartford & State of Connecticut.
I am fifty-nine years of age last June, have always resided in Suffield; Was well acquaint- ed with Captain Nathaniel Pomeroy; knew him intimately all my life until his death; my father & he lived near neighbors.
My father was a Revolutionary soldier and pensioner. He tended Mill just across the pond from where Captain Pomeroy lived; they were often together and I have frequently heard them talk over their old revolutionary stories; I have heard Capt. Pomeroy say that he was at Horse-neck, at White Plains, at New London and at Rhode-Island. He said he got up a Company to go to Rhode-Island, and I remember hearing him say that when he went away, at the time he went to Rhode-Island his Wife was in the family way, was near being con- fined, and that the child was born while he was gone.
My Wife is one of the Children of Capt. Pomeroy and I have known that she had joined in an application for a pension

I did not have much faith in it, & never knew what the testimony was; or what it was wanted to prove; have never been present when any of the testimony has been taken. And further the deponent saith not. Ebenezer Chaplin
The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed by said deponent before me this 19 th day of February A.D. 1855. I further certify that I am well acquainted with said Ebenezer Chaplin & that his reputation for truth and veracity is good and that he is fully entitled to credit. I also further certify that the foregoing deposition is in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim which it is intended to support.
Daniel W. Norton justice of the Peace for Hartford County.

The deposition of Robert Hetherway of Suffield, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut.
I am fifty years of age last November have always resided in Suffield, was acquaint- -quainted with Capt. Nathaniel Pomeroy, & his Widow Martha Pomeroy I knew intimately. She resided in my family over six years before her death; some one or two years before her death we talked of making an effort to obtain a pension. I went and talked with Richard Warner in West-Suffield who was in the Revolu- -tionary war at that time time , a pensioner & who was ready to give his testimony of service of Capt Nathaniel Pomeroy therein, on my return home, I well remember what Mrs Martha Pomeroy said (for she was Mother to my wife). She talked over a good deal about revolutionary affairs, she told over the places where her husband served she mentioned New-London, Horse-neck White Plains and Rhode Island; I well remember her telling of his commanding a Com- -pany in Rhode-Island, and of his

going away at that time, she said, when he went away, he left her thirty dollars in silver, which she hid in her straw-bed. I knew of no family record of the births, deaths, and marriages, of Capt. Nath l Pomeroy's family; we have no such record, there is a record of the marriage of Nathaniel & Martha Pomeroy my wife's father & mother, on the Town book but it is imperfect, and does not give the date.
Thaddeus Pomeroy was my wife's brother, he died in February 1829. twenty-six years ago, he was then said to be forty-six years old, the previous January. I have heard Mrs Pomeroy say that there was a daughter four years older than Thaddeus who died a little over the age of six years, and further the deponent saith not.
Robert Hathaway

The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed by said deponent before me this 19 th day of February A.D. 1855. I further certify that I am well acquainted with said Robert Hattaway, & that his reputation for truth and veracity is good & that he is fully entitled to credit. I also further certify that the foregoing deposition is in my own hand writing and that I have no interest in the claim which it is intended to support.
Daniel W. Horton, Justice of the Peace for Hartford County.

I Martha Chaplin of Suffield, Hartford County, Connecticut, of lawful age do depose and say, that I am the daughter, of Capt. Nathl & Martha Pomeroy and am one of the claimants for a pension in the case of Martha Pomeroy now under consideration at the Pension Office, that with respect to the time of the marriage of my father & mother I refer to my former deposition on file in said Office in said case, and I further depose and say that there is no family record of my father's family of births, deaths and marriages, that I have in my possession the old family Bible and that it contains no such record.
My brother Thaddeus died twenty-six years ago the 21 st day of February 1855. Vix: in February 1829, he was forty six years of age the January before his death. so that he was born in January 1783, I have heard both my parents say that there was a daughter who died at the age of six years who was four years and some months older than my brother Thaddeus, that my

Brother Thaddeus was two years old when she died, and that she was over, six years old, when she died,
I also recollect distinctly, it hav- -ing been called to my attention by my brother in law, Mr. Hatheway that some years ago, while my brother was alive Mr. Hatheway talked some of getting her a pen- -sion, but was finally discouraged from the attempt by my brother Nathaniel, that, at that time my mother talked a good deal about old times, and told about my fathers going to Rhode-Island - and that he left her thirty dollars in silver when he went away, & that she put it in an old glove and hid it in the straw-bed under the feather-bed on which she slept. I now remember this distinctly though until Mr. Hatheway called it to my mind I had entirely forgot- -ten it,
And for the disponent South not,
Martha Chaplin

The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed by said deponent before me this 19 th of February A.D. 1855. I further certify that I am well ac- quainted with said Martha Chaplin and that her reputation for truth and veracity is good and that she is fully entitled to credit. I also further certify that the foregoing deposition is in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim which it is intended to support.
Daniel H. Norton Justice of the Peace, for Hartford County.

I Lucy Austin of Sheffield in Hartford county, Connecticut; being duly sworn depose and say; that what I have heretofore testified in a former deposition with respect to the marriage and wedding of Capt. Nathaniel and Martha Pomeroy is true, and to that deposition on file in the Pension Office, in the claim of Martha Pomeroy's heirs I refer as a part of this deposition.
I now further depose and say, that I well remember, said wedding, or at least I remember the time distinctly, that Ensign Spencer the father of Martha Spencer (afterwards Captain Pomeroy's wife & Widow.) came up on his horse, and invited my father and mother to the wedding. I am now nearly eighty-six years old, having been born March 16 th 1769.
At the time I am speaking, I could not have been more than eight years old.
As I before testified it was cool weather, and before, my father and mother, went to the wedding, my mother kindled a fire in the front room and left me in charge of the children. My brother Joel was

thin a baby. — not able to walk. And slept in the cradle. how old he was I cannot say; but he must have been but a very few months old. I have the Old Family Bible in which the record of births &c. of my fathers family was kept.
It is in the hand writing of Sister Phebe Austin — in that record it is in- scribed that my brother Joel was born February 21 st 1777.
And further the deponent saith not.
Lucy Austin.

The foregoing deposition was sworn to and subscribed by said deponent, before me this 20 th day of February A.D. 1855. I further certify, that I am well acquainted with said Lucy Austin and that her reputation for truth and veracity is good and that she is fully entitled to credit. I also further certify that the foregoing deposition is in my own hand writing, and that I have no interest in the claim which it is intended to sustain.
Daniel W. Norton Justice of the Peace. for Hartford County.

State of Connecticut, } ss. Hartford County, }
County Clerk's Office, Hartford, February 21 1855.
Walter Hawley Clerk of the County Court, within and for the County of Hartford and keeper of the Seal thereof, hereby certify that
Daniel Henry  N. Norton Esquire,
was on the 19 day of February A. D. 1855, ever since has been, and now is, a Justice of the Peace within and for the said County, duly elected and sworn, with authority by the laws of this State, to administer Oaths, and take the acknowledgment of Deeds and other Instruments; that I am acquainted with his hand-writing, and that the signature to the instrument hereto annexed, purporting to be his, is his genuine, official signature.
In Testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and the seal of said County Court, this 21 st day of February A. D. 1855.
Walter Hawley Clerk.
at very long range, seven, seven and