John Whitaker

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Whittaker-76 Profile last modified 18 Mar 2019

John Whittaker was born on 27 Jun 1641 in Skipton, Yorkshire, England. He married Elizabeth (Linfield) Whittaker on Apr 1660 in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. He is the father of Mary Whittaker, John Whittaker, Jonathan Whittaker, Sarah Whittaker, Hannah Whittaker, Abigail (Whittaker) Crosby, David Whittaker, Nathaniel Whittaker and Daniel Whittaker. John died about 1689. Profile manager: Dee Christophel D'Errico Profile last modified 18 Mar 2019 | Created 22 Feb 2010

biography

To be completed.

Updated Sources

(1) "Watertown, Massachusetts Genealogies and Histories: Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of the Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts for: Whittaker; In 1661, John Whittaker, had promised marriage to Mary Linfield, but did not perform. [See Court Record.]. Jan 20, 1677 John Whittaker, and wife Elizabeth of Watertown, for 230 pounds Sterling sold to Nathaniel Payne of Rehoboth houses and land in watertown, purchased of wid. Martha Eyre and her children. About this time they moved to Billerica. In a trial, Oct. 1677, witnesses John Whittaker, age 36; Elizabeth, age 35; Elizabeth, age 16; John Jr., age 14, "a very lying boy." Online record source access thru: [www.Ancestry.com].

(2) "US New England Marriages Prior to 1700: for Whittaker, John (1641-) & Elizabeth _____ (1642-); b 1661(2?); Watertown/Billerica." Online record source access thru: [www.Ancestry.com].

SOURCES Bishop's Transcripts Skipton Yorkshire See uploaded court records; and, be sure to click on the green arrow, at the bottom to view the Conditions of the Breach of Promise Bond. Conditions of the Breach of Promise Bond show that John Whittaker was to either marry "Elizabeth" Linfield or continue to attend court until he did marry her. This proves that the bond would not have been returned to him unless he married her.

Please note that the actual marriage date for John Whittaker and Elizabeth Linfield should technically be April of 1661. Back then, the calendar year changed, the New Year being on March 25th, rather than January 1st, like today. The breach of promise case occurred in February of 1660, they married in April, after the year had changed at the end of March. Their first child, Mary, was born in March of 1661 before the year changed again, which would be almost a full year after their marriage. This calendar was so confusing, even to people back then that you often find dates written like this: "March 1660/61"; not to mention how confusing it is today.

For even more detail on John and Elizabeth's court cases and their children and descendants, see my first story ever published:

Misadventures of Elizabeth Lin(d)field and John Whittaker

Research Notes

Many in the past, including the Mormon Church, have believed that John was born in 1623 at Halesowen, Worcestershire, England, son of Nicholas Whittaker. I do not agree with this premise.

The Mormon Church has this pedigree as part of the Ancestors of Brigham Young. Sarah, the daughter of John and Elizabeth Whittaker born 12 Jun 1666 at Watertown married William Young at Boston in 1694 and they were the Paternal Great Great Grandparents of Brigham Young. I think this is why many have accepted this hypothesis without question.

The first problem in this idea is the age of John Whittaker of Watertown. "Ages From Court Records 1636 to 1700" by Melinde Lutz Sanborn, Page 216, gives his age at the time of the "1677 Hog Case" to be 36years. This would put his birth year at about 1641. We know that this is indeed the same John Whittaker of Watertown because his wife and two children were also deposed in the case; and, their ages are given also. Elizabeth is stated as being 35 years of age, John, Jr. 14 years of age and Mary 16 years old. This matches up with the exact names and dates of birth of his children. If he were born in 1623, he would be 54 years old. I believe that even if the ages were an estimate, which I don't think they are, it would be unusual to say the least to mistake a 54 year old man for a 36 year old.

The second problem raises it's head in the "1660 Breach of Promise Case", where John pledges a debt owed to him by his brother, Richard, toward the 50 pound bond that he is required to post. There is no record of Nicholas Whittaker ever having a son named Richard.

The end of this case has also been described as John having married Elizabeth while he was still under legal age. A birth date of 1641 would fit in with this scenario. However, the birth date of 1623 would make him well over the legal minimum at 37 years old at the time of the marriage.

I believe that John Whittaker of Watertown was born 27 Jun 1641 at Skipton, Yorkshire, England to Robert Whittaker and his wife, Ann Wright. John was named after an earlier born brother, also named John, who met an untimely death at the age of 11 in the year 1636. Among other siblings, he had a brother named Richard born 19 Jan 1634.

It is said that the first settlers of Watertown were a rebellious lot, always arguing and refusing to kowtow to authority. John's personality seemed to fit that description. He was a real fireball with a chip on his shoulder from the moment he burst on the scene, which seems to be when he promised to marry Elizabeth Linfield; and, then apparently reneged. According to the depositions in the case, included in Folio numbers 18, 20, and, finally, 28 of the Middlesex County Court Records of 1660/1661, he set her up in a house; and after spending months there with her, was readying to leave for England, which he had done before. It seems to be at this point, that he decided he no longer wanted to marry her and left for another town, Cambridge. Elizabeth was in the town without family to protect her. Two men, Edward Oakes and William Manning, took up Elizabeth's cause and brought her to the Magistrate. John was brought back to town to explain himself. When asked why he no longer wished to marry Elizabeth, he was evasive, just stating that he had "lost affection" for her and that she had done no wrong. The court required him to post a 50 pound bond, after which they gave him approximately two weeks to get his mind right about marrying her. If he had not married her by this time, then he would lose the 50 pounds; and then have to post another bond of 100 pounds, this time, in order to procure another couple of weeks to think....and so on. John apparently married Elizabeth before having to post any further bonds. This case has done more than any one thing to malign his character; and unfairly, at that. Due to a mistake in transcribing the court records, this case was listed in history books such as Bond's "History of Watertown" as "John promised marriage to Mary Linfield; but , did not perform". Right after this bomb was dropped, in the next paragraph, it was acknowledged that he married Elizabeth (no last name). For hundreds of years this has made it look as if he promised to marry one girl; but, instead, married another; when actually he not only did marry the same woman; but, stayed with her for the rest of his life and raised a large and very interesting family with her.

There are those who have claimed to have researched this "Breach of Promise" case; and say that it proves that John was a cad and a rogue. I have found evidence that their claims are simply not founded in truth. I took the time to go through the films of all of the actual court cases of Middlesex County and found that on 25 June 1661 at a court in Charlestown, the magistrates Richard Bellingham, Richard Russell and Thomas Danforth returned the 50 pound bond which John Whittaker had forfeited when he had not shown up on 02 April 1661 at the court in Cambridge to either marry Elizabeth or prove that he had already married her. This appears in the later transcribed book of Pulsifer on pages 231-232. The proof also appears in the original transcript of the court records on pages 190 and 191. The wording is as follows: "John Whitticus discharged> John Whitticus (another spelling of Whittaker) appearing in court, is released of his bond for the good behavior and from the penalty of those bonds forfeited by his non-appearance at Cambridge court." I submit that there is no way that they would have released the bond to John Whittaker if he had not married the woman who had sued him for breach of promise. It also proves that the designation "Mary Linfield" was a mistake in the records because if he had promised to marry "Mary" and then married "Elizabeth" he still would have forfeited the bond money. The truth is that he promised to marry Elizabeth Linfield, got cold feet, was called in front of the magistrates to explain himself, posted bond, did not show up at the next court session; then did show up at the session at Charlestown with proof that he had married Elizabeth Linfield who became the mother of his children and lifetime companion. The above evidence for the return of the bond may be found on both LDS film #892250 and film #892251 covering the court records of Middlesex County Massachusetts.

Another possible reason for Elizabeth Linfield being designated as "Mary Linfield" in some of the court records has been presented in "Connecticut, 1600s-1800s Local Families and Histories, New England Families, Volume 1, Genealogies and Memorials", Page 452, copyright by MyFamily.com, Inc., where it is stated that during the early 1700s it was still a legal custom to assume the name Mary when the given name of a woman was unknown.

The Linfield Family in Sussex, England, where they seemed to have resided for hundreds of years became involved with the Quaker movement early on. I also plan to investigate whether the parents of Elizabeth were involved in this. If this is the case, it would go far to explain not only why John Whittaker may have had "cold feet" when it came to marrying Elizabeth; but why the Watertown neighbors may have looked upon both of them with such disdain. Quakers were not regarded with any degree of sympathy. Sometimes they were whipped and killed. This might also explain why John was quite evasive when asked for a reason why he changed his mind about marrying her, finishing up with "I have lost affection for her".

The next most singly important litigation in the lives of the Whittakers occurred in 1673. At this time John Whittaker was leasing half of the Widow Eyre's farm in Watertown. The other half was leased to John Chenery, who agreed to improve the farm; and, agreed not to remove any wood from the property. Mrs. Eyre signed over power of attorney to John Whittaker to take Mr. Chenery to court for eviction from the property and damages done to it. The case comprises almost the whole of Folio number 63 for that year. At least a dozen of the townspeople testified that they had seen John Chenery removing rough wood and clapboards from the farm and taking them to his own property. One wonders if these clapboards may have been a part of the barn which we shall see also played a key part in the later unfolding scenario. The court found for John Whittaker and Mrs. Eyre, evicting John Chenery before his lease was up and charging him damages. It was brought out in this case that the fences were in disrepair at this time. After the end of this case, John Whittaker bought the farms from Mrs. Eyre on a mortgage, making himself a staunch enemy in the town in the bargain.

The Hog Case of 1677 precipitated the family pulling up stakes, selling their property, and moving to Billerica. John, Jr. and his sister, Mary, and three men of the town, including one John Chenery, being an enemy of John Whittaker, Sr., testified that John Whittaker, Jr. was "a very lying boy". The prosecution of this case was also rooted in an ongoing feud with the Whittaker's next door neighbor, John Hammond, who had been called before the court in the past for confiscating animals which strayed onto his property. One such case is that of John Bridge vs John Hammond which appears in the 31st frame of the LDS film #892250 of the Middlesex County Court Transcripts. Back in this beginning, the court found for the owner of the livestock and against Mr. Hammond.

The troubles apparently started when the fence between the two properties fell into disrepair and Whittaker's livestock were straying onto the land of John Hammond. John Hammond confiscated the animals and took them to the town pound. Apparently, John Whittaker was removing the animals on his own, as they were disappearing from the pound. Whittaker and Hammond started to argue with each other. They also began to bring suit against each other for slander and assault and battery. John and Elizabeth sued John Hammond for knocking Elizabeth down in the road and kicking her in the stomach. This level of hostility was reached only after, John Whittaker, had beaten Hammond with a stick on his own property, as well as beating his servant with a tree limb in the road near both properties.

These suits and their subsequent fines pressed the Whittakers into debt. They already had a mortgage to pay for the farm which they had bought from the Widow Eire. Finally John Whittaker was forced to give up most of his livestock as collateral for an eight pound loan to buy provisions. Listed in this exorbitant collateral were 18 cattle, two heifers, three swine, a steer, and a bay mare, as well as his entire corn crop. John Dix was the creditor of the loan who was holding the collateral livestock. Hammond moved to attach the livestock of Whittaker being held by Dix. Mr. Dix had already sold two hogs to one Jeremy Morse or Moss. The Whittaker children testified that the two hogs were the same swine which their father had turned over to Mr. Dix for collateral; and, this was the testimony for which John Jr. was labeled "a very lying boy". However, the jury found for Mr. Hammond in this case because they decided that the papers which John Dix and John Whittaker had drawn up themselves for the collateral on the eight pound loan were not legal, even though they had been witnessed and sealed by those same men who later found them illegal.

When John, Sr. was to come to court to answer the complaints, he refused to appear; and, was found guilty of contempt; and, fined twenty shillings or ten days imprisonment. I have not yet uncovered the outcome of that choice. Once the case started rolling, it seemed to be thundering down a steep hill without benefit of brakes. All of the cases and papers which were generated during this feud may be found in Folio numbers 74, 76 and 77 of the Middlesex County Court Records for that year, 1677.

Adding insult to injury, the nosey neighbors of John and Elizabeth next called him before the court for stuffing his crop into his house. This case was included in Folio number 80 of the Middlesex County Court Papers for the year 1677. He appeared not to have the benefit of a barn to store the crop in after harvest. His only hope to get out of debt was the sale of this crop. His livestock had already been confiscated by the wily next door neighbor. Watertown during this time was one of the worst hit towns as regards Indian attacks. They killed people and livestock, burned buildings and ran off with the children. Whether his lack of a barn was due to some Indian Depredation, due to disrepair, or to the pilfering of John Chenery is not known. He refused to remove the crop from his house and was once again fined. This appears to be the straw which broke the camel's back. Soon, he sold the farm to Nathaniel Payne of Rehoboth, who was a neighbor of his brother Richard for 230 pounds.

Before the Whittakers could leave town and remove to Billerica, the magistrates had to have one last word. They called Elizabeth before the court for defacing the quit claim deed. Another bond had to be posted for Elizabeth's good behavior and return appearance before the court. Papers in Folio number 82 of the Middlesex County Court Papers for the year 1678 show that this "defacing" of the deed involved Elizabeth allegedly changing the name of the buyer on the deed from Stephen Payne of Rehoboth to Nathaniel Payne, his son. What stood to be gained from this act is now lost in the mists of time. Elizabeth did confess to "defacing" this deed which conveyed the farm in Watertown to Mr. Payne; and, then leaving it at the Clerk's office to be recorded. She was ordered to pay "treble" damages to Stephen Payne. She was later discharged from the bond.

There are those who say, having studied these cases, that all of the fault in these goings on rests with the Whittakers; and, that they continued to be "magnets for mayhem" after moving to Billerica. However, after going through every Middlesex County Court Case filmed by the Mormon Church, I disagree totally with that conclusion. John Whittaker was only involved in one more case in Billerica, being only a witness in another person's trial. The wife of John Durand, neighbor of Whittaker, was called in front of the court for carousing at night with men other than her husband. John Whittaker testified that one day, upon visiting the Durands at their house with two other men, he was seated with the two men at the fireside smoking a pipe when Mrs. Durand came up to him calling him a "pretty rogue" and grabbing him on both sides of his face and kissing him of a sudden. This was witnessed by the two other men present at the fireside. It is interesting to note that, long after the Whittakers had moved on to Concord, in 1692, John Durand died in prison after being sent there upon being charged with "Witchcraft".

I don't think that these happenings should be viewed with a mind of today. I think they should be viewed in the context of the social infrastructure of the times in which they occurred. The truth is that none of the towns in Massachusetts were planned with the idea of expansion or "new" citizens moving in. Towns were set up with the Church (called a Meeting House then) in the middle of the town. Around the Meeting House, the lots for houses were assigned to each original purchaser in the town (who had been an approved member of the church). In a ring around the house lots, additional lots of, say 20 acres each, were apportioned to each neighbor for their vegetable gardens. Then an outer ring of larger lots for grazing of livestock were parceled out to each family. There would also be common property for all town members for common uses, which would be shared by all. You could only acquire property in these towns by buying it from an original owner, or if they died, from their heirs (which is what John Whittaker did). However, under these very stringent circumstances, you would still be an outsider, viewed with suspicion. If the town bought additional land, as sometimes happened, it was divided up between the townspeople. If you bought some of this outlying land and tried to eke a living out there, you would be much more liable to Indian attack. As another aside, you would also be further from the Meeting House, to which you must go every Sunday, without fail; rain, sleet or snow, preferably walking as even the beasts were not to work on Sunday.

Taking all of this into consideration, I believe that the people of Watertown decided that they did not like these "strangers" living in their town; and began to act out. I conclude that John Whittaker tried to defend himself and his family the only way he knew how; and, when he saw that he was fighting a losing battle, he decided to cash in and move on before they found a way to confiscate his farm. Billerica, in the 1600s, was considered to be some of the best farming land in all of Massachusetts. However, it was on the frontier, and suffered many problems with Indians. This fact probably prompted the removal of the family to Concord. They may have stayed in Billerica for about 10 years; from 1678 to about 1688. Tax lists of 1688 do not show them as living there. The book "The History of Concord Massachusetts" states that they were in Concord before 1690.

John and Elizabeth and family may have been living in Chelmsford by 1688. John Senior and two of his sons, John Junior and Jonathan, appear in a court case covering events which occurred in Chelmsford in 1689. The case was Thomas Parker vs John Whittaker which appears in Folio numbers 133 and 140 of the Middlesex County Court Records of that year. By this time, I believe that John Whittaker had no faith in the court system ever helping him again. One day in Chelmsford, according to testimonies of this case, he found Thomas Parker taking a yoke of his oxen down the road. He and his sons stopped Parker in the road, confronting him and asking for the return of the oxen. An argument erupted; and John grabbed an oak stick from a woodpile of a neighbor and hit Mr. Parker so hard over the head that he was knocked senseless for two weeks and tended by a doctor at home. When the constable came looking for him to explain himself, he ran off; and was eventually caught hiding in a barn. When tried in court, it appears that the court made him pay the costs of medical care for Thomas Parker. This case may have been the cause of the move to Concord. It was also noted in an early newspaper named "Public Occurrences" published in Boston, Thursday, 25 Sep 1690, that "Barbarous Indians" had been "lurking" around Chelmsford; and, that two children ages nine and eleven years were missing from the town. So, Indian problems may have added to the list of reasons, as well.

There is one mysterious case from Folio number 169 of the year 1696 in the same Middlesex County Court Records. It is a fornication case against John Whittaker and Sarah Brabrook of Concord; and, in it, Sarah is with child and accuses John of being the father. The mystery here is whether this is John Whittaker, Sr. or John Whittaker, Jr. All that exists for this case is a copy of the five pound bond he posted to appear to answer at the next court for this "crime". However, it was not mentioned at the next court. John, Jr. did not marry until 1705. John, Sr. having any involvement in this case would prove that he was still living in 1696; and, living in Concord.

"The Concord Guide Book", published in 1880, mentions the "Old Whittaker House" as still standing just behind Punkatasset Hill, on page 44. The house burned down about 20 years later. There is no way to be certain that John and Elizabeth Whittaker ever lived there together; but, the name of the house itself seems to suggest that this could be so. Punkatasset Hill was used by the Militia and Minute Men during the first alarm of the Revolutionary War, 19 April 1775, to watch the movements of the British troops. This area is now part of a protected preserve; and, is as wild as it probably was then, although not far from Monument Street in the heart of Concord.

One last tidbit of the times occurred in 1700 when a written warning was given to David Whittaker on November 25th. The warning was not to let his brother, Jonathan Whittaker, who was now of Connecticut Colony, stay at his house any longer. He had been there for about one month. The selectmen did not wish Jonathan to continue as an inhabitant of Concord; and they wished David to warn him off. Apparently, like some condo associations of today, they thought a month was a bit long for him to stay. This shows how hard it was to be an "outsider" in these little towns. The bottom of this directive was given "By Order of the Selectmen" and signed by Thomas Browne, town clerk.

I do not know yet what happened to John Whittaker at the end of his life or exactly when his life came to an end. His wife and children were living in Concord before 1690. There is no record of him dying or being buried in Concord. I did visit Concord and Chelmsford in 2007; but, could find no trace of his resting place. I did find out, however, that this was not unusual for the time. They did not regularly mark graves for fear the Indians would desecrate the bodies, so there are very few tombstones before about 1750. I was able to find the tombstones of David Whittaker and his wife, one child, and a grandchild in the Old Hillside Cemetery in Concord.

The foregoing was written in 2006 and published the same year, in the Longshot Journal of the Lin(d)field One Name Group in Sussex, England: Longshot Journal Vol. 12 No. 1. In 2007, I did, with my daughter, Joanne, take a genealogy trip to Massachusetts, where we spent a week staying at Billerica, Chelmsford, Concord, Lincoln, Lexington, Marlborough, and Princeton. We had also planned to visit Rehoboth one day; but, spent a whole day lost on the crooked country roads between the above named towns, feeling lucky to find our way back to our hotel in Chelmsford. I later found out that the Rehoboth where John's brother, Richard, had lived is now in Rhode Island, so we would have been lost again, had we attempted to go there. I did not find where John and Elizabeth were buried; but, did find David and his descendants buried in Concord. I was quite amazed at how close together all these little quaint and lovely towns were. The roads which connected them looked like what probably were once Indian pathways as they meandered around and had many a fork in them. These forks and a lack of street signs were a recipe for getting lost. Everyone assumed you knew where you were going; and, all directions started with "It's a mile down the road". This mile could be 4 blocks or 5 miles, to them it was still a mile.

The History of Billerica, Massachusetts by Rev. Henry A. Hazen states on page 162 that "John and his wife, Elizabeth, came from Watertown. In Oct., 1677, a trial in which they were witnesses gives their ages 36 and 35; and, they have ch.: Elizabeth, aged 16, and John, aged 14, 'a very lying boy.' Probably they had other ch., and Daniel, b. 1679, May 10." Page 168 lists John Whittaker and his date of first known residence in Billerica as 1679. Page 190 lists him as living in the same neighborhood with Roger Toothaker in 1679.

---

SOURCES Bishop's Transcripts Skipton Yorkshire

See uploaded court records; and, be sure to click on the green arrow, at the bottom to view the Conditions of the Breach of Promise Bond. Conditions of the Breach of Promise Bond show that John Whittaker was to either marry "Elizabeth" Linfield or continue to attend court until he did marry her. This proves that the bond would not have been returned to him unless he married her.

Please note that the actual marriage date for John Whittaker and Elizabeth Linfield should technically be April of 1661. Back then, the calendar year changed, the New Year being on March 25th, rather than January 1st, like today. The breach of promise case occurred in February of 1660, they married in April, after the year had changed at the end of March. Their first child, Mary, was born in March of 1661 before the year changed again, which would be almost a full year after their marriage. This calendar was so confusing, even to people back then that you often find dates written like this: "March 1660/61"; not to mention how confusing it is today.

NOTE Many in the past, including the Mormon Church, have believed that John was born in 1623 at Halesowen, Worcestershire, England, son of Nicholas Whittaker. I do not agree with this premise. The Mormon Church has this pedigree as part of the Ancestors of Brigham Young. Sarah, the daughter of John and Elizabeth Whittaker born 12 Jun 1666 at Watertown married William Young at Boston in 1694 and they were the Paternal Great Great Grandparents of Brigham Young. I think this is why many have accepted this hypothesis without question. The first problem in this idea is the age of John Whittaker of Watertown. "Ages From Court Records 1636 to 1700" by Melinde Lutz Sanborn, Page 216, gives his age at the time of the "1677 Hog Case" to be 36years. This would put his birth year at about 1641. We know that this is indeed the same John Whittaker of Watertown because his wife and two children were also deposed in the case; and, their ages are given also. Elizabeth is stated as being 35 years of age, John, Jr. 14 years of age and Mary 16 years old. This matches up with the exact names and dates of birth of his children. If he were born in 1623, he would be 54 years old. I believe that even if the ages were an estimate, which I don't think they are, it would be unusual to say the least to mistake a 54 year old man for a 36 year old. The second problem raises it's head in the "1660 Breach of Promise Case", where John pledges a debt owed to him by his brother, Richard, toward the 50 pound bond that he is required to post. There is no record of Nicholas Whittaker ever having a son named Richard. The end of this case has also been described as John having married Elizabeth while he was still under legal age. A birth date of 1641 would fit in with this scenario. However, the birth date of 1623 would make him well over the legal minimum at 37 years old at the time of the marriage. I believe that John Whittaker of Watertown was born 27 Jun 1641 at Skipton, Yorkshire, England to Robert Whittaker and his wife, Ann Wright. John was named after an earlier born brother, also named John, who met an untimely death at the age of 11 in the year 1636. Among other siblings, he had a brother named Richard born 19 Jan 1634. It is said that the first settlers of Watertown were a rebellious lot, always arguing and refusing to kowtow to authority. John's personality seemed to fit that description. He was a real fireball with a chip on his shoulder from the moment he burst on the scene, which seems to be when he promised to marry Elizabeth Linfield; and, then apparently reneged. According to the depositions in the case, included in Folio numbers 18, 20, and, finally, 28 of the Middlesex County Court Records of 1660/1661, he set her up in a house; and after spending months there with her, was readying to leave for England, which he had done before. It seems to be at this point, that he decided he no longer wanted to marry her and left for another town, Cambridge. Elizabeth was

in the town without family to protect her. Two men, Edward Oakes and William Manning, took up Elizabeth's cause and brought her to the Magistrate. John was brought back to town to explain himself. When asked why he no longer wished to marry Elizabeth, he was evasive, just stating that he had "lost affection" for her and that she had done no wrong. The court required him to post a 50 pound bond, after which they gave him approximately two weeks to get his mind right about marrying her. If he had not married her by this time, then he would lose the 50 pounds; and then have to post another bond of 100 pounds, this time, in order to procure another couple of weeks to think....and so on. John apparently married Elizabeth before having to post any further bonds. This case has done more than any one thing to malign his character; and unfairly, at that. Due to a mistake in transcribing the court records, this case was listed in history books such as Bond's "History of Watertown" as "John promised marriage to Mary Linfield; but , did not perform". Right after this bomb was dropped, in the next paragraph, it was acknowledged that he married Elizabeth (no last name). For hundreds of years this has made it look as if he promised to marry one girl; but, instead, married another; when actually he not only did marry the same woman; but, stayed with her for the rest of his life and raised a large and very interesting family with her. There are those who have claimed to have researched this "Breach of Promise" case; and say that it proves that John was a cad and a rogue. I have found evidence that their claims are simply not founded in truth. I took the time to go through the films of all of the actual court cases of Middlesex County and found that on 25 June 1661 at a court in Charlestown, the magistrates

Richard Bellingham, Richard Russell and Thomas Danforth returned the 50 pound bond which John Whittaker had forfeited when he had not shown up on 02 April 1661 at the court in Cambridge to either marry Elizabeth or prove that he had already married her. This appears in the later transcribed book of Pulsifer on pages 231-232. The proof also appears in the original transcript of the court records on pages 190 and 191. The wording is as follows: "John Whitticus discharged> John Whitticus (another spelling of Whittaker) appearing in court, is released of his bond for the good behavior and from the penalty of those bonds forfeited by his non-appearance at Cambridge court." I submit that there is no way that they would have released the bond to John Whittaker if he had not married the woman who had sued him for breach of promise. It also proves that the designation "Mary Linfield" was a mistake in the records because if he had promised to marry "Mary" and then married "Elizabeth" he still would have forfeited the bond money. The truth is that he promised to marry Elizabeth Linfield, got cold feet, was called in front of the magistrates to explain himself, posted bond, did not show up at the next court session; then did show up at the session at Charlestown with proof that he had married Elizabeth Linfield who became the mother of his children and lifetime companion. The above evidence for the return of the bond may be found on both LDS film #892250 and film #892251 covering the court records of Middlesex County Massachusetts. Another possible reason for Elizabeth Linfield being designated as "Mary Linfield" in some of the court records has been presented in "Connecticut, 1600s-1800s Local Families and Histories, New England Families, Volume 1, Genealogies and Memorials", Page 452, copyright by MyFamily.com, Inc., where it is stated that during the early 1700s it was still a legal custom to assume the name Mary when the given name of a woman was unknown. The Linfield Family in Sussex, England, where they seemed to have resided for hundreds of years became involved with the Quaker movement early on. I also plan to investigate whether the parents of Elizabeth were involved in this. If this is the case, it would go far to explain not only why John Whittaker may have had "cold feet" when it came to marrying Elizabeth; but

why the Watertown neighbors may have looked upon both of them with such disdain. Quakers were not regarded with any degree of sympathy. Sometimes they were whipped and killed. This might also explain why John was quite evasive when asked for a reason why he changed his mind about marrying her, finishing up with "I have lost affection for her". The next most singly important litigation in the lives of the Whittakers occurred in 1673. At this time John Whittaker was leasing half of the Widow Eyre's farm in Watertown. The other half was leased to John Chenery, who agreed to improve the farm; and, agreed not to remove any wood from the property. Mrs. Eyre signed over power of attorney to John Whittaker to take Mr. Chenery to court for eviction from the property and damages done to it. The case comprises almost the whole of Folio number 63 for that year. At least a dozen of the townspeople testified that they had seen John Chenery removing rough wood and clapboards from the farm and taking them to his own property. One wonders if these clapboards may have been a part of the barn which we

shall see also played a key part in the later unfolding scenario. The court found for John Whittaker and Mrs. Eyre, evicting John Chenery before his lease was up and charging him damages. It was brought out in this case that the fences were in disrepair at this time. After the end of this case, John Whittaker bought the farms from Mrs. Eyre on a mortgage, making himself a staunch enemy in the town in the bargain. The Hog Case of 1677 precipitated the family pulling up stakes, selling their property, and moving to Billerica. John, Jr. and his sister, Mary, and three men of the town, including one John Chenery, being an enemy of John Whittaker, Sr., testified that John Whittaker, Jr. was "a very lying boy". The prosecution of this case was also rooted in an ongoing feud with the Whittaker's next door neighbor, John Hammond, who had been called before the court in the past for confiscating animals which strayed onto his property. One such case is that of John Bridge vs John Hammond which appears in the 31st frame of the LDS film #892250 of the Middlesex County Court Transcripts. Back in this beginning, the court found for the owner of the livestock and against

Mr. Hammond. The troubles apparently started when the fence between the two properties fell into disrepair and Whittaker's livestock were straying onto the land of John Hammond. John Hammond confiscated the animals and took them to the town pound. Apparently, John Whittaker was removing the animals on his own, as they were disappearing from the pound. Whittaker and Hammond started to argue with each other. They also began to bring suit against each other for slander and assault and battery. John and Elizabeth sued John Hammond for knocking Elizabeth down in the road and kicking her in the stomach. This level of hostility was reached only after, John Whittaker, had beaten Hammond with a stick on his own property, as well as beating his servant with a tree limb in the road near both properties. These suits and their subsequent fines pressed the Whittakers into debt. They already had a mortgage to pay for the farm which they had bought from the Widow Eire. Finally John Whittaker was forced to give up most of his livestock as collateral for an eight pound loan to buy provisions. Listed in this exorbitant collateral were 18 cattle, two heifers, three swine, a steer, and a bay mare, as well as his entire corn crop. John Dix was the creditor of the loan who was holding the collateral livestock. Hammond moved to attach the livestock of Whittaker being held by Dix. Mr. Dix had already sold two hogs to one Jeremy Morse or Moss. The Whittaker children testified that the two hogs were the same swine which their father had turned over to Mr. Dix for collateral; and, this was the testimony for which John Jr. was labeled "a very lying boy". However, the jury found for Mr. Hammond in this case because they decided that the papers which John Dix and John Whittaker had drawn up themselves for the collateral on the eight pound loan were not legal, even though they had been witnessed and sealed by those same men who later found them illegal. When John, Sr. was to come to court to answer the complaints, he refused to appear; and, was found guilty of contempt; and, fined twenty shillings or ten days imprisonment. I have not yet uncovered the outcome of that choice. Once the case started rolling, it seemed to be thundering down a steep hill without benefit of brakes. All of the cases and papers which were generated during this feud may be found in Folio numbers 74, 76 and 77 of the Middlesex

County Court Records for that year, 1677. Adding insult to injury, the nosey neighbors of John and Elizabeth next called him before the court for stuffing his crop into his house. This case was included in Folio number 80 of the Middlesex County Court Papers for the year 1677. He appeared not to have the benefit of a barn to store the crop in after harvest. His only hope to get out of debt was the sale of this crop. His livestock had already been confiscated by the wily next door neighbor. Watertown during this time was one of the worst hit towns as regards Indian attacks. They killed people and livestock, burned buildings and ran off with the children. Whether his lack of a barn was due to some Indian Depredation, due to disrepair, or to the pilfering of John Chenery is not known. He refused to remove the crop from his house and was once again fined. This appears to be the straw which broke the camel's back. Soon, he sold the farm to Nathaniel Payne of Rehoboth, who was a neighbor of his brother Richard for 230 pounds. Before the Whittakers could leave town and remove to Billerica, the magistrates had to have one last word. They called Elizabeth before the court for defacing the quit claim deed. Another bond had to be posted for Elizabeth's good behavior and return appearance before the court. Papers

in Folio number 82 of the Middlesex County Court Papers for the year 1678 show that this "defacing" of the deed involved Elizabeth allegedly changing the name of the buyer on the deed from Stephen Payne of Rehoboth to Nathaniel Payne, his son. What stood to be gained from this act is now lost in the mists of time. Elizabeth did confess to "defacing" this deed which conveyed the farm in Watertown to Mr. Payne; and, then leaving it at the Clerk's office to be recorded. She was ordered to pay "treble" damages to Stephen Payne. She was later discharged from the bond. There are those who say, having studied these cases, that all of the fault in these goings on rests with the Whittakers; and, that they continued to be "magnets for mayhem" after moving to Billerica. However, after going through every Middlesex County Court Case filmed by the Mormon Church, I disagree totally with that conclusion. John Whittaker was only involved in one more case in Billerica, being only a witness in another person's trial. The wife of John Durand, neighbor of Whittaker, was called in front of the court for carousing at night with men other than her husband. John Whittaker testified that one day, upon visiting the Durands at their house with two other men, he was seated with the two men at the fireside smoking a pipe when Mrs. Durand came up to him calling him a "pretty rogue" and grabbing him on both sides of his face and kissing him of a sudden. This was witnessed by the two other men present at the fireside. It is interesting to note that, long

after the Whittakers had moved on to Concord, in 1692, John Durand died in prison after being sent there upon being charged with "Witchcraft". I don't think that these happenings should be viewed with a mind of today. I think they should be viewed in the context of the social infrastructure of the times in which they occurred. The truth is that none of the towns in Massachusetts were planned with the idea of expansion or "new"

citizens moving in. Towns were set up with the Church (called a Meeting House then) in the middle of the town. Around the Meeting House, the lots for houses were assigned to each original purchaser in the town (who had been an approved member of the church). In a ring around the house lots, additional lots of, say 20 acres each, were apportioned to each neighbor for their vegetable gardens. Then an outer ring of larger lots for grazing of livestock were parceled out to each family. There would also be common property for all town members for common uses, which would be shared by all. You could only acquire property in these towns by buying it from an original owner, or if they died, from their heirs (which is what John Whittaker did). However, under these very stringent circumstances, you would still be an outsider, viewed with suspicion. If the town bought additional land, as sometimes happened, it was divided up between the townspeople. If you bought some of this outlying land and tried to eke a living out there, you would be much more liable to Indian attack. As another aside, you would also be further from the Meeting House, to which you must go every Sunday, without fail; rain, sleet or snow, preferably walking as even the beasts were not to work on Sunday. Taking all of this into consideration, I believe that the people of Watertown decided that they did not like these "strangers" living in their town; and began to act out. I conclude that John Whittaker tried to defend himself and his family the only way he knew how; and, when he saw that he was

fighting a losing battle, he decided to cash in and move on before they found a way to confiscate his farm. Billerica, in the 1600s, was considered to be some of the best farming land in all of Massachusetts. However, it was on the frontier, and suffered many problems with Indians. This fact probably prompted the removal of the family to Concord. They may have stayed in Billerica for about 10 years; from 1678 to about 1688. Tax lists of 1688 do not show them as living there. The book "The History of Concord Massachusetts" states that they were in Concord before 1690. John and Elizabeth and family may have been living in Chelmsford by 1688. John Senior and two of his sons, John Junior and Jonathan, appear in a court case covering events which occurred in Chelmsford in 1689. The case was Thomas Parker vs John Whittaker which appears in Folio numbers 133 and 140 of the Middlesex County Court Records of that year. By this time, I believe

that John Whittaker had no faith in the court system ever helping him again. One day in Chelmsford, according to testimonies of this case, he found Thomas Parker taking a yoke of his oxen down the road. He and his sons stopped Parker in the road, confronting him and asking for the return of the oxen. An argument erupted; and John grabbed an oak stick from a woodpile of a neighbor and hit Mr. Parker so hard over the head that he was knocked senseless for two weeks and tended by a doctor at home. When the constable came looking for him to explain himself, he ran off; and was eventually caught hiding in a barn. When tried in court, it appears that the court made him pay the costs of medical care for Thomas Parker. This case may have been the cause of the move to Concord. It was also noted in an early newspaper named "Public Occurrences" published in Boston, Thursday, 25 Sep 1690, that "Barbarous Indians" had been "lurking" around Chelmsford; and, that two children ages nine and eleven years were missing from the town. So, Indian problems may have added to the list of reasons, as well. There is one mysterious case from Folio number 169 of the year 1696 in the same Middlesex County Court Records. It is a fornication case against John Whittaker and Sarah Brabrook of Concord; and, in it, Sarah is with child and accuses John of being the father. The mystery here is whether this is John Whittaker, Sr. or John Whittaker, Jr. All that exists for this case is a copy

of the five pound bond he posted to appear to answer at the next court for this "crime". However, it was not mentioned at the next court. John, Jr. did not marry until 1705. John, Sr. having any involvement in this case would prove that he was still living in 1696; and, living in Concord. "The Concord Guide Book", published in 1880, mentions the "Old Whittaker House" as still standing just behind Punkatasset Hill, on page 44. The house burned down about 20 years later. There is no way to be certain that John and Elizabeth Whittaker ever lived there together; but, the name of the house itself seems to suggest that this could be so. Punkatasset Hill was used by the Militia and Minute Men during the first alarm of the Revolutionary War, 19 April 1775, to watch the movements of the British troops. This area is now part of a protected preserve; and, is as wild as it probably was then, although not far from Monument Street in the heart of Concord. One last tidbit of the times occurred in 1700 when a written warning was given to David Whittaker on November 25th. The warning was not to let his brother, Jonathan Whittaker, who was now of Connecticut Colony, stay at his house any longer. He had been there for about one month. The selectmen did not wish Jonathan to continue as an inhabitant of Concord; and they

wished David to warn him off. Apparently, like some condo associations of today, they thought a month was a bit long for him to stay. This shows how hard it was to be an "outsider" in these little towns. The bottom of this directive was given "By Order of the Selectmen" and signed by Thomas Browne, town clerk. I do not know yet what happened to John Whittaker at the end of his life or exactly when his life came to an end. His wife and children were living in Concord before 1690. There is no record of him dying or being buried in Concord. I did visit Concord and Chelmsford in 2007; but, could find no trace of his resting place. I did find out, however, that this was not unusual for the time. They did not regularly mark graves for fear the Indians would desecrate the bodies, so there are very few tombstones before about 1750. I was able to find the tombstones of David Whittaker and his wife, one child, and a grandchild in the Old Hillside Cemetery in Concord.

The foregoing was written in 2006 and published the same year, in the Longshot Journal of the Lin(d)field One Name Group in Sussex, England: Longshot Journal Vol. 12 No. 1. In 2007, I did, with my daughter, Joanne, take a genealogy trip to Massachusetts, where we spent a week staying at Billerica, Chelmsford, Concord, Lincoln, Lexington, Marlborough, and Princeton. We had also planned to visit Rehoboth one day; but, spent a whole day lost on the crooked country roads between the above named towns, feeling lucky to find our way back to our hotel in Chelmsford. I later found out that the Rehoboth where John's brother, Richard, had lived is now in Rhode Island, so we would have been lost again, had we attempted to go there. I did not find where John and Elizabeth were buried; but, did find David and his descendants buried in Concord. I was quite amazed at how close together all these little quaint and lovely towns were. The roads which connected them looked like what probably were once Indian pathways as they meandered around and had many a fork in them. These forks and a lack of street signs were a recipe for getting lost. Everyone assumed you knew where you were going; and, all directions started with "It's a mile down the road". This mile could be 4 blocks or 5 miles, to them it was still a mile.

The History of Billerica, Massachusetts by Rev. Henry A. Hazen states on page 162 that "John and his wife, Elizabeth, came from Watertown. In Oct., 1677, a trial in which they were witnesses gives their ages 36 and 35; and, they have ch.: Elizabeth, aged 16, and John, aged 14, 'a very lying boy.' Probably they had other ch., and Daniel, b. 1679, May 10." Page 168 lists John Whittaker and his date of first known residence in Billerica as 1679. Page 190 lists him as living in the same neighborhood with Roger Toothaker in 1679.

---

More About JOHN WHITTAKER and ELIZABETH LINFIELD: Marriage: Apr 1660, Middlesex County, Massachusetts9,10
Children of JOHN WHITTAKER and ELIZABETH LINFIELD are: 2. i. MARY3 WHITTAKER, b. 10 Mar 1661, Watertown, MA; d. 16 Feb 1756, Concord, Middlesex, MA. 3. ii. JOHN WHITTAKER, b. 23 Aug 1662, Watertown, MA; d. 07 May 1746, Stow, Massachusetts. 4. iii. JONATHAN WHITTAKER, b. 08 Oct 1664, Watertown, MA. 5. iv. SARAH WHITTAKER, b. 12 Jun 1666, Watertown, MA. 6. v. HANNAH WHITTAKER, b. 14 May 1669, Watertown, MA. 7. vi. ABIGAIL WHITTAKER, b. 04 May 1671, Watertown, MA; d. 31 Mar 1755, Billerica, Middlesex, MA. 8. vii. DAVID WHITTAKER, b. Abt. 1674, Watertown, MA; d. 08 Apr 1755, Concord, Middlesex, MA. 9. viii. NATHANIEL WHITTAKER, b. Abt. 1676, Watertown, Middlesex, MA; d. 05 Jun 1755, Lincoln, Middlesex, MA. 10. ix. DANIEL WHITTAKER, b. 10 May 1679, Billerica, Middlesex, MA.

Source: http://www.genealogy.com/users/d/e/r/Dee-Derrico/FILE/0065text.tx