Morning journal and courier., 1889-03-29
NORTH HAVEN ANNALS.

cences of the old ProPrieIors.
 The 'Land Records" of the New Haver colonists commence in 1649 and doubtless correctly represent each sale and transfer oi property thenceforward. Their territory as bought of the sachems Momaugin and Mon. towese, extending more than ten miles north and south and thirteen east and west, was oi course unsurveyed and undivided. At first all of it outside the town plot was "com. mons." From time to time tracts were meas ured and then apportioned among the plant CTS as their numbers grew and wants in. creased. These tracts were called Divisions, J hence arose the terms so frequently seen in their records, ''First division," Second divi- sion, " 'fThird division," etc., indicating the order in which they were surveyed.
 The domain of the present town of New Haven principally lay in the Third, Fourth and Fifth divisions. While the topography of the country has not changed except in the removal of the timber, the boundaries of these several grand divisions are extremely uncertain. Between the second and third was laid out Eye highway east and west, but where ye highway began or ended, or or what parallel it lay, is not so we'll defined. Its approximate place, however, partly from
 
 ly from deduction, is assigned by the writer to the present Sackett's Point road. It is judged that it was the intention of the colo nists that main highways should in most cuses separate these large tracts and define their boundaries. "Wharton's Brook" on ou1 present Wallingford boundary line for hun dred rods or more was then in part the northern limit of the "Fifth division" Here, too, is an old highway running east and west (though modified in later years), apparently designed as boundary similar to that be. tween the second and third divisions men. tioned.
 The territory now included in the Fourth school district, with that of part of the First and possibly the Seventh, mainly demarcation between the Third and Fourth, and Fourth and Fifth, if they existed at all, are obliterated now unless it be that the present Mansfield bridge crossing indicates such line. Thus ill the main these three ftdivisions'' embraced the acreage of our town. That they were well known and established in those days admits of no ques- are recorded as lying within their separate borders. The difficulty in tracing their en- tire outlines consists in the illusory nature of many of the "bounds" described, as for in- stance, Ca tree," occasionally Ca ditch, j sometimes "a creek" or f'a stone," or "a pile of stones." or fence or highway was used to designate what was perfectly clear to the dweIler then, but has since vanished in the march of the years.
 It must not be understood that all this land was taken up at once, nor that any planter could possess monopoly of it even by purchase. There were no 'ssyndicates'' nor "trusts" in that day. While it was true that rank and possession and ability was en- couraged and rewarded by the colony, yet a ia& 1o;1 too much territory, the government deeming it better that all should have part rather than part should have all. Herein they differed from the policy pursued in the colo nization of Virginia, and the sequel showed how they reasoned well. All land not as- signed nor taken up was called Commons. D On these commons the settler could pasture his cattle, but it does not appear he could re- move any of it's growth, such as timber or grass, or improve it's condition without per- mission. Persons appointed by the General Court to lay out and assign lands to the set- tiers were called "sizers" Sometimes 8 farm with buildings thereon is described in deeds as "messuage." An exchange of lands between settlers was called an "inden- ture." Such were few of the quaint terms known to the planters here.
 The three settlers mentioned in the last article were not long destined to remain alone in their wilder ness. The early conner sought his home chiefly along the valleys and the water courses where the soil was friable and the streams proved possible source of food The valley of the Quinnipiac river, with it's trib- utary of Muddy river the latter name mis- nomer), offered special attractions to the The wonder is more did not avail themselves of these advantages. It was not true then, as now, that in the "Fifth Division" the soil was thin and sterile, for we know as early as 173S these plains were hunting grounds for dear by the Indians, and that a certain wiry and ill-favord grass grew 30 dense and tall as to literally conceal from sight one walking through it. Here also grew "great oaks and much scattered" few of which remain to this time, but 50 old and gnarled and rugged as to have lost their value except for frewood or as reminders of the "days that are no more." Notable in- stances of these trees still stand on Pierpont Park and near the residence of Samuel Bai- ley. The farms taken up at first by the plant CTS seem to have lain mainly on the east side of the Quinnipiac river, between Sackett's Point and Wharton's brook. When Daniel and Thomas Barnes, Thomas Jacobs and Moses Crockett came few years later, they fol- lowed the course of Muddy river" The Tutt4es chose the west side of the Quinnipiac with the possible exception of Thomas, and 1t is worthy of mention that the bearers of this old family name have through period of two hundred years and more, mainly around this mother locality.
 Between the coming of the settlers men, toned and the year 1700 there were several accessions of families to this settlement and it began to be called Eye north village" James Bishop, Samuel Todd, William Futile, John Sanford, Joseph Ives, Simon Tuttle, Seth Heaton, John Grannis, Joseph Clark Samuel Ives, Ebenezer Frost, Moses Blakeslee and doubtless few others removed hither not far from the last mentioned date.
 Of these men none but Bishop Joseph Ives, Samuel Ives and Simon Futile appear to have been buried here. The others may have been but no evidence of it exists. Simon Futile, born in 1871, was the son of Jonathan and grandson of William, the planter. He died in 1725, and his was the second burial in 'ye place for buriing- from ye meeting and as near ye foot of ye hill and as far from ye meeting house as may be con- He was one of the founders of the present Ecclesiastical society. He did not view everything, it appears, exactly as his brethren did, for when it was "agreed upon by ye society that they would send person to Northheld, Mass, to make applica- sion to Mir. Wetmore in order to his coming and supplying ye place. of ye ministry amongst them. Simon Futile entered his dissent against ye above vote after it was passed" What was the nature of his ''dis- sent" does not appear, but, perhaps to keep him quiet, they appointed him on their church building committee in 1717. He "dissented" Again five years later, when it was agreed on by ye society that they will call council of ministers and messengers to hear, consider and determine ye differences be- tween our pastor (Wetmo1e) and ourselves" md, moreover, at @ society meeting in 1723, when it was "agreed on by ye society that, considering ye incorisgement they have had rom ye rev'd elders, they doe give ye Rev. Mr. James Pierpont call in order to a set- dement, among them to carry on ye work of 7e ministry" he rose up third time and entered his protest against ye foregoing vote after it was passed" Were he living in his day he would be known as "Simon the Oissenter."
 James Bishop, 1s71-17ss, was one of the original committee of six appointed to or yanize the parish society. No other mention 8 made of him. He was probably the father ,f James Bishop, who lies under the then ex- oensive stone table to the right of the west ,rn entrance to the old cemetery. His own burial mark is a sandstone slab of uncouth and design.
 Joseph Ives was born in 1872 and died in L751. He was the first clerk of the society n 1716 and was annually thereto reelected ill 1730, when a break occurs in the records # twenty years. It is difficult to account