John Reynolds, of Rhode Island

• Not the same as John Reynolds, of Weymouth & Stonington
• Not a proven twin of James Reynolds, of Plymouth & Kingstown
• Not a proven son of William Reynolds, of Bermuda & Esther Reynolds; children seem unidentified

  ---

Notes

http://www.themorrisclan.net/GENEALOGY/REYNOLDS%20John%20F2212.html

“He is apparently confused with another Reynolds family of Rhode Island. The John Reynolds of Rhode Island was born on 13 May 1625 in Westerly, Rhode Island; the son of William Reynolds and Ester Ruth (Roth). He died in August 1700 in Kingstown, Rhode Island. (S4,S14). To the best of my knowledge he is not the same as John Reynolds who married Anna Holbrooke. If John was born in 1625, William would have been 65 years old at the time. (S15). While possible, it is quite unlikely that they are the same family.”

---

Attached are profiles seen as children of John Reynolds, of Weymouth & Stonington & Anne Holbrook without supporting evidence. Feel free to merge those profiles into correct tree position.

Notes

https://minerdescent.com/2010/07/26/john-reynolds/

John Reynolds, some time previous to 1667 came to Misquamicut (Westerly) where he bought a house and lot of James Babcock. In 1667 he was dispossessed by the Constable of Stonington as an intruder on lands belonging to that town and within the charter limits claimed by Connecticut. Reynolds subsequently submitted to Connecticut authority, became an inhabitant of Stonington, and, as he alleged, hired of Mr. Roger Plaisted the same land he had formerly purchased from James Babcock. In September 1670, he complained to the County Court at New London against Jonathan Armstrong, a Rhode Island man, “for unjust molestation and contemtuous improving of the said Renolds land, etc.” The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff of £14 and costs, with liberty to the defendant to review at next Court. The Court, June 1671, confirmed the former verdict. Armstrong appealed to the Court of Assistants in October following. The Court of Assistants reduced the damages allowed to Reynolds to £10-15-6, from which Armstrong appealed to the next General Assembly.”

The Assembly refused to interfere further in the matter at its next session, expressing its opinion as follows:

“They find it too apparent that the sayd Armstrong as well as others of those people of Squamacuk, have been troublesome, injurious and provoking to this Colony, and their settlement and manageing there is no other but an intrusion and so very offensive which might call for severity, etc.”

Going back to the time of John Reynolds’ arrival in Westerly, we may learn some of the circumstances attending his first settlement there from the testimony of John Osborne, already mentioned:

“This deponent testifieth that when John Renolds came first to Squamecute to settle, being destitute of habitation there, he went to James Badcock, Senior, to see if he could procure a place to be in for the present; and this deponent being present he heard the sayd Badcock offer to sell the above said Renolds his sellar he lived in: and he lett him the land he had then broake up for that yeare: for both which, to witt the purchase of the sellar and hyre of the land he demanded forty-five shillings which sayd should satisfye him full for his paynes the which the Aforesd John Renolds Agreed to give him and this Deponent sawe John Renolds paye partt of the forty-five shillings in cloth unto James Badcock the rest he Ingadged to paye when his wife came up to Squamacut. And this deponent sayth further that the Seller aforementioned is the seller that Jonathan Armstrong afterwards lived in.”

References

• http://reynoldspatova.org/getperson.php?personID=I2433&tree=reynolds1