Helen’s hypothesis contained these words: "William had previously received his share of his father's land, the double portion due him, but he almost at once sold this and moved nearer his father-in-law. All this together with "now wife" had made me wonder if perhaps William [William (Junior)] might be the child of a former marriage." Do the records support this theoretical conclusion?

On March 24, 1716/17, William Stark (Senior) deeded his homestead to his son, Christopher, inserting this clause in the deed:¹¹

“…reserving only that the sd William Starke shall have the premises above menshoned to possess and improve during his natural life & if sd William Starks now wife shall outlive him then she shall have the lower roome in the new house and one third part of sd land for her maintainance during her widowhood but in case she shall marey again to have nothing…”

"Isaac Lamb of Groton for 170L payd by William Stark Juner of Groton … 50A … near Mistick River bounded with Majher Winthrop's land and on the north with land layed out to ----- Springer and towards the west with a brook commonly called Colvers brook and …. The South with land in the possession of sd Craig … Major Winthrops land fifty and two Rods together with all such buildings and … timber fruit trees above and under woods ways rights libertys …1 April 1714. 

Signed: Isaac Lamb. 

Wit: John C Cooke his mark. Huttson Springer his X mark. 

Ack and recd 2 Apr 1714."

One could argue this was an excellent exchange, but how would William Stark (Senior) have taken this news that his son had disposed of the gift this way? Perhaps we learn something from the deed (dated March 3, 1715/16) in which William Stark (Senior) gave William Stark, (Junior) his "second portion" of acreage. This portion was much smaller than the first, but in addition William (Senior) inserted a restrictive clause in the deed.¹⁵ This clause reads as follows: "... and appurtenances to ye same belonging to him the sd William Stark Junr during his naturall life and after his decease to my Granchild Jonathan Stark and his heirs forever..." This clause prevented William Stark (Junior) from selling the land during his lifetime, and upon his death, ownership of it was to pass to the son of William (Junior), Jonathan Stark. This deed would seem to show that William Stark (Senior) was not at all pleased with his son for selling the earlier property, and it is most likely the reason, too, that Christopher Stark appears to be the favorite in the March 24, 1716/17 deed transaction. In both of these deeds, William Stark (Senior) has made it difficult for his sons to sell the property he had given to them as a gift.

While the possibility of William Stark (Junior) and Christopher Stark having different mothers cannot be completely dismissed, there was no factual information in the above analysis supporting Helen Stark's theory. Assuming Elizabeth was the mother of William Stark (Junior), the marriage most likely occurred in 1688 or before. Elizabeth’s given name appeared in the records just three times beginning in October of 1698: first, when William Stark (Senior), Elizabeth, William Stark (Junior), and Christopher Stark (Senior) were baptized in the Stonington "Road Church;" second, when she signed the Baptist dissenters petition; and third, when she signed a receipt for her share of her husband's estate in his 1730 probate record.

Author’s Comment: Because we cannot say with certainty that William Stark (Senior) had two wives, this article will presume he was married once – to Elizabeth – who for the purposes of this text was the mother of all of the children of William Stark (Senior). Elizabeth’s parentage and origins have been much discussed by many past and present researchers. However, after examining the theories and evidence presented, I’ve seen nothing that would be conclusive enough to offer my own suggestions or opinions. Therefore, I will leave it to others to attempt to resolve this issue

________

In May of 1650, the General Court of Connecticut added a provision to the colony’s General Laws that made attendance at church on Sundays mandatory:¹⁶

Further, everyone in the community was required by law to contribute to the salary of the Congregational Church’s regional minister:

“And doe order, that those who are (taught) in the word in the severall plantations, bee (called) together, that every mann voluntarily sett downe what hee is willing to allowe to that end and (use): and if any man refuse to pay a meet proportion, that then hee bee rated by Authority in some (just) and equall way; and if after this any man withhold or delay due payment the Civill power to bee exercised as in other just debts.”

In March of 1658, the General Court passed the following order:¹⁶

“This court orders that there stall be no ministry or church administration entertained or attended by the inhabitants of any plantation in this Colony distinct and separate from, and in opposition to that which is openly and publicly observed and dispensed by the settled and approved minister of the place except it be by approbation of the General Court and neighboring churches; provided always that this order shall not hinder any private meeting or godly persons to attend any duties that Christianity or religion call for, as fasts or conference. Nor take place upon such as are hindered by any just impediments on the Sabbath day from the public assemblies by weather or water and the like.”

This proclamation by the Connecticut General Court established the Congregational Church as the Church of the Colony of Connecticut. These laws were in force when Groton Township was created in 1705 and were modified somewhat in 1708.

William Stark, his wife Elizabeth, and their children were baptized at the Stonington Congregational Church in October of 1698 by Reverend James Noyes; their daughter, Phebe Stark, was baptized on July 6, 1701.¹⁷ Years earlier, the so-called Half-Way Covenant had gained wide acceptance throughout New England; under it, the baptism of adults and their children was deemed sufficient to enable those baptized to enjoy limited membership in the church. To become full members, the applicants had to testify to their personal experiences with God in the form of autobiographical conversion narratives.¹⁸

There is no surviving baptismal record for William and Elizabeth’s son Daniel, who most likely was born between 1702 and 1704. This suggests the parents became Baptists after Phebe was baptized at the Stonington Congregational Church in mid-1701; most likely, they were converted during visits to nearby Rhode Island or as a result of visits by Baptist ministers to Connecticut. Evidence that William and Elizabeth Stark had changed their religious philosophy came when they, along with ten others, signed a petition to be presented to the General Court of Connecticut when it convened in October of 1704. The petition identified those who had signed it as dissenters; named their ordained minister; and requested permission to hold their own religious meetings – at the home of William and Elizabeth Stark.¹⁹

“To the Honorable Cort Setting at New Haven

These are to signify that we differ from you in Som Poynts of Religion but yett we desier to Live Pesably and quiettly with our Neighbours and in order hear unto we Send These to signify That since it has Pleased the Almity God to putt it into the hart of our Gracious Queen to grant us dissenters Proclamated liberty of Consiense which both you and us are greatly favor with and whereas she hath given you Power to surpress Imorality and Vice we humbly submitt our selves to it and to all others that do not prohibitt the liberty of our Consienses and we understanding that your laws Requiers us to Petition to you for the settling of our Meeting we humbly submitt thereto and do beseech of you That you would not deny us hearin, we do desier that our meeting might be stated and held at Will Starks in New London our Sosiaty are chiefly These Underwritten;

Ordained Minister or Teacher Daniel Piearse

Members William Stark, John Seigr Culver, Isaac Lamb, Ephraim Culver, William Chubb, John Hammett

Sisters Marcy Culver, Elizabeth Lamb, Elizabeth Stark, Mary Hadsell, Margett Chubb, Sarah Culver

We have Sent the Articles of our faith with this our Petition by Captain Daniell Witherell That Thereby you may Understand our Prinsiples; October ye 5th 1704.”

If other religious practices had been disallowed by the Connecticut General Laws of 1650 and 1658, what had changed to prompt the small group of dissenters to submit this petition?

________

The “Act of Toleration” was adopted by the English Parliament on May 24, 1689, during the first year of the reign of William and Mary.²⁰ This act granted freedom of worship to non-conformist protestants – Baptists, Congregationalists, and Quakers – who dissented from the Church of England, but excluded Catholics from this privilege. When Queen Anne ascended the throne in 1702, tolerance of non-conformist protestants continued.

Thus the Starks and their fellow petitioners were most likely referring to the Act of Toleration when they stated:

“That since it has Pleased the Almity God to putt it into the hart of our Gracious Queen to grant us dissenters Proclamated liberty of Consiense which both you and us are greatly favor…”

They Added:

"We have Sent the Articles of our faith with this our Petition by Captain Daniell Witherell That Thereby you may Understand our Prinsiples; October ye 5th 1704”

As required by the Act of Toleration, the petitioning dissenters had identified themselves; sent their petition requesting permission to hold their own separate religious meetings to the proper authority (the General Court of Connecticut); named their ordained minister; and given the articles of their faith to a representative of the General Court, in the person of Captain Daniel Wetherell – a General Court assistant representing New London County.

By adhering to the prescribed requirements, then, the petitioners were requesting freedom of worship as non-conformist protestants who dissented from the Congregational Church. Strictly interpreted, however, the Act of Toleration identified non-conformist protestants as those who dissented from the Church of England. Most likely, the phrase “which both you and us are greatly favor” was intended to remind the court that as Congregationalists they were granted freedom of worship as non-conformist protestants who dissented from the Church of England. The petitioners seemed to be implying that this privilege should also apply to protestants who dissented from the Congregational Church. (At the time this petition was signed, the General Court of Connecticut had no freedom of worship provision for dissenters and would not, as we will see, address this issue until 1708.)

The General Court convened on October 12, 1704, in New Haven, and the records from that date report that Captain Daniel Wetherell was present. Nowhere do the official proceedings for that date refer to the petition from the Starks and their coreligionists, which suggests that the petition was acted upon (presumably, rejected) without discussion in open court. Yet, according to Charles R. Stark, the record of this petition had survived to his day (1922): he cites a copy of it that could be found in the Ecclesiastical Records, Book I, at the Connecticut State Library at Hartford.²¹ If the document survived into the 20th century, then the General Court must have received and filed it. Why didn’t they discuss it? Discussion of how an earlier controversy involving religious dissent in Connecticut was handled may hold the answer.

In November of 1691, Reverend Gurdon Saltonstall was ordained as the new minister of the New London Congregational Church, replacing the recently deceased Reverend Bradstreet. Saltonstall came from an aristocratic family of rank and wealth and at the age of twenty-two was rigid and uncompromising in his religious beliefs. As a clergyman of unusual ability, he made many friends both in and out of the colony and established himself as a staunch and talented advocate of Congregational Church rule. Through these friendships, especially among the clergy, Saltonstall acquired considerable influence among officials in the County Courts and at the General Court of Connecticut.²²

While Bradstreet was minister, the non-conformist protestant group known as the Rogerenes, led by John Rogers, had caused considerable religious disruption within the New London Community. After many years of disagreement, the community and Reverend Bradstreet had settled into an uneasy tolerance of the Rogerenes. However, after a few fresh skirmishes with the Rogerenes, and especially with John Rogers himself, Saltonstall set about finding a way to silence this non-conformist group that was disturbing the Congregational policies Saltonstall so desired to re-establish and have enforced by the authorities. In May of 1695, at a special session of the General Court, Reverend Saltonstall, Daniel Wetherell, and John Christopher accused John Rogers of using words that were presumptuous, absurd, and of a blasphemous nature. The verdict was guilty, and the sentence was an imprisonment that could only end when Rogers agreed to the court’s definition of “good behavior.” Not surprisingly, Rogers would not accept these terms in exchange for his liberty.²²

In May of 1697, John Rogers (Junior) was bound by a bond of £40 to appear before the General Court of Connecticut “to answer what may be objected against him for bringing a printed book or pamphlet into this colony which was not licensed by authority, and for selling the same up and down the colony, as also for other misdemeanors.” The pamphlet in question was entitled, “Remonstrance in Behalf of Peaceable Dissenters.” In summary, this pamphlet charged, that the present actions of the authority (Connecticut) showed that the King has nothing to do with this colony; that making dissenters pay towards the maintenance of a Congregational Minister was contrary to law and therefore rapine and robbery; that the rights of peaceable dissenters had been of late, by permission of the authorities, violated; and that the authority had illegally oppressed them.¹⁰⁶

This pamphlet, which apparently received widespread circulation within the colony (according to Anna B. Williams), most likely prompted the General Court to beat a retreat, for in the October session it set John Rogers at liberty “in the expectation that he will behave himself civilly and peaceably in the future.”²² The term expectation would appear to be considerably more liberal than the terms stated at the time of sentencing. Considering that the principal figures involved in the incarceration of John Rogers (Saltonstall, Daniel Wetherell, and John Christopher) were the same ones who considered the Baptists’ petition in October 1704, we might suppose that the court decided not to risk reviving the earlier controversy by addressing the issue of religious toleration in open court at this time.

________

Whether or not the General Court actually approved the petition in late 1704, the Baptists forged ahead and established their own church, apparently without restraint. The next year, in 1705 (the year in which the township of Groton was incorporated), the small group of dissenters called a young man from Rhode Island to become their pastor, and under his leadership the church was formally organized. Valentine Wightman was the son of George and Elizabeth (Updike) Wightman, his father being a lineal descendant of Edward Wightman of Burton-on-Trent, the last martyr by fire in England (at Lichfield April 11, 1612). Young Wightman had married Susannah Holmes and was the father of two children at the time of his coming to Groton, on Sept. 6, 1707. William Stark deeded to his pastor a house and twenty acres of land, as the following deed shows:²³

"William Stark of Groatan … for the love, good will and affection which I have and doe bear towards my loveing friend Valentine Wightman of Kingston in the Naraganset Countie in the Colony of Rhoade Island … one house and land … in the town of Groaton … 20a …1 Sep 1707 …

Signed: William Starke.

Wit: John Collver, the mark of Stephen S Starke, Alexander Huling.

Ack 15 Jun 1708.

Recd 31 July 1708.’

Thomas Armitage, a Baptist historian, described Elder Wightman as follows:²⁴

"This first Baptist pastor of Connecticut was an extremely serene and quiet character, but his amiable soul flashed the fire of a true witness from his eye upon the bigots who would interfere with him. He possessed sound learning, great zeal and deep piety. A certain calm discretion made him symmetrical and consistent, and adapted him to cautious but intrepid leadership in his new and trying position. He was a close student of the Scriptures and a powerful preacher, caring tenderly for the flock of Christ. Then, he brought from his native commonwealth a mild tolerance of spirit for all men, with a love for their salvation which disarmed opposition. Yet no Church could legally exist without permission from the secular power; but it was doubly difficult to secure this tolerance for Baptists. Moreover, Wightman sought not the approbation of the neighboring clergy, for he contended that it was the right of every man to worship God as he pleased. His quiet firmness had much to do with that gradual relaxing of the law which at last permitted a man to show that he was a member in a Baptist Church and paid toward its support, and so could be furnished with a certificate of exemption from liability to distraint or imprisonment for refusing to pay the minister's tax of the State establishment.”

Wightman did not, in the early years of his ministry in Groton, escape persecution at the hands of the Congregational leadership in Groton. Wightman and his wife were warned by the Magistrate to depart on October 17, 1707. A month later, on November 25, 1707, Wightman was sentenced to pay 20 shillings for not complying. He was warned again in December of 1707, but again he did not comply. After Wightman’s second refusal to pay the fine, William Stark posted bond for him.²⁵

In May of 1708, Connecticut finally enacted a religious toleration statute, which allowed groups to exercise “sober” religious dissent if they qualified.²⁶

“And it is further enacted, for the ease of such as soberly dissent from the way of worship and ministrie established by the antient laws of this government, and still continuing , That if any such persons shall at the countie court of that countie that they belong to, qualifie themselves according to an act made in the first year of the late King William and Queen Mary, granting libertie of worshipping God in a way separate from that which is by law established, they shall enjoy the same libertie and priviledge in any place within this Colonie, without any let, hindrance and molestation whatsoever. Provided always, that nothing herein shall be construed to the prejudice of the rights and privileges of the churches as by law established in this government, or to the excusing any person from paying any such minister or town dues, as are now, or shall hereafter be due from them.”

This provision most certainly was enacted to comply with the 1689 Act of Toleration, as the following passage confirms:

“…act made in the first year of the late King William and Queen Mary, granting libertie of worshipping God in a way separate from that which is by law established…”

The passages of this act did not, however, save the Baptists from further harassment. On April 20th, 1709, apparently after their failure to comply with the requirements of this act, William Stark, John Culver, Isaac Lamb, Joseph Culver (Junior), Aaron Stark, and Stephen Stark, along with their spouses, were accused by the grand jury of holding unlawful meetings and of assisting Valentine Wightman in settling in the community without the approval of the New London Selectmen.²⁷ No surviving record makes reference to this matter, which suggests that the issues were resolved. Perhaps the accused reminded the court that the dissenters had complied with the requirements in their 1704 petition, or perhaps they amended their original petition to report the new members of the congregation and the new minister. We can interpret the silence of the records thereafter as evidence that the Baptists were allowed to worship in peace.

________

Charles R. Stark had these comments on the importance of this deed to William Stark and his family:¹¹³

"From this deed two points are well settled, that the land granted was already used for a burying ground — probably that of the Stark family on whose land it was located — and also the date of the erection of the first Baptist meeting house. The building stood a little to the southeast of the entrance gate of the Wightman Burying Ground, and the original structure served the church from the time of its erection in 1718 until 1790, when it was taken down and another building was erected on the same site."

Despite these early setbacks, the small church continued to flourish and (albeit at a different site today) celebrated its 300^th year of existence in November of 2004.

________

By the end of the 17^th century, New England’s prosperity depended on a trading system that serviced the economy of the West Indies. With the dense forests and high-quality timber to be found in New England, a shipbuilding industry began to emerge. According to Author Alan Taylor:³⁰

“Between 1674 and 1714, New England built more than twelve hundred ships, totaling at least 75,000 tons. By 1700, Boston alone had fifteen shipyards, which produced more ships than the rest of the English colonies combined. Indeed, Boston ranked second only to London as a shipbuilding center in the empires.”

In New London County, Thomas Wells was engaged in ship building on the Pawcatuck River as early as 1677 and John Leeds was building ships before 1700. Later, in 1720, master shipbuilder Captain John Jeffery came from Portsmouth, England and established a ship-building facility on the Groton Township bank of the Thames River.³¹

Groton had an abundance of high-quality timber, ideal as material for building superior ships and sloops. What Gordon lacked were sawmills and a transportation network to process and move the harvested trees to the rapidly developing shipbuilding facilities. On July 5, 1709, a country road was laid out running from a ferry at Groton (on the Thames River), maintained by Cary Latham, to another ferry at Mystic, maintained by Robert Burrows. Numerous Groton deed records show this country road partly ran through William Stark’s property. With a large number of trees on his property and that of his neighbors, William decided in January of 1711/12 to invest in the construction of a sawmill that would cut the harvested timber into planks. The country road provided a means for his neighbors to bring their harvested trees to the sawmill – as well as a means of transporting the planks to the ship builders.

In 1699, William Stark, along with others, had assisted in the repair and rebuilding of the Winthrop Mill, as described by a group of Culver Family Researchers:

As suggested earlier, William Stark and Ephraim Culver were friends, and the Stark and Culver families are found on the Baptist Church petition of 1704. The above research suggests that many families associated with William Stark were familiar with mill construction and repair and most likely furnished assistance and labor to enable William to build a sawmill.

Near the country road was a brook (known as Haley’s Brook today) running through William Stark’s property and that of Valentine Wightman – this being the same property William had given to his minister in September of 1707. Apparently, the ideal place for the erection of a sawmill on Haley’s Brook was a portion of the brook running north to south within the boundary of the Wightman property. Therefore, William Stark had two problems to solve: one was obtaining capital for the construction of the sawmill; and the second was obtaining access to the property for building the sawmill.

On January 3, 1711/12, William sold six acres of property to the Groton School Master, John Bernard.³²

On the same day, William (Senior) purchased property from Valentine Wightman.³³

The first property was most likely sold to John Bernard for 15£ in order to raise funds to pay Valentine Wightman the purchase price for the above property. William Stark paid his Baptist minister 25£ for that portion of the property which lay to the east of the brook, the brook now becoming the boundary between Wightman and Stark. Although the deed between Wightman and William Stark does not mention a brook, an agreement made between Wightman and Stark on the same date reports: “…viz I William Stark having purchased all the Land lying on the east side of the brook with the medow of Valentine Wightman…” (See Below.) By buying back the eastern portion of the property, William Stark was now able to control the east side of Haley’s Brook and could build his sawmill there. On the same day William (Senior) purchased this property from Wightman, the two men signed an agreement that allowed a meadow on Wightman’s property, located on the west side of the brook, to be flooded from November to May and provided for a "passable cart way through my land to the commons." These three transactions were performed for the purpose of allowing William Stark (Senior) to build a sawmill on Haley’s Brook for the purpose of cutting timber into planks to be used for building ships.¹¹⁸

The provisions that allowed William to dam the brook during sawmill operations, thus flooding a meadow on the Wightman property, would allow William to direct the full flow of the brook through a water shoot to drive the mill wheel. From the phrasing, the sawmill would apparently be operational from November to May of each year. During the months from May to October, William and the family were probably involved in preparing the fields for planting, sowing seed, cultivating, and harvesting.

This would demonstrate William was quite the entrepreneur. With the introduction of the sawmill, William was able to provide work for his neighbors and family year around.

________

Alan Taylor described the New England Family as follows:³⁵

“Diligent and realistic, most New England families sought an ’independent competency.’ ’Independence’ meant owning enough property – a farm or a shop – to employ a family, without having to work for someone else as a hired hand or servant. A ’competency’ meant a sufficiency, but not an abundance, or worldly goods: enough to eat, adequate if simple clothing, a roof over their heads, some consumer goods, and an ability to transmit this standard of living to many children.”

The same can be said for William Stark (Senior) and his family. They seem to have worked as a family unit. As already discussed, William Stark (Senior) deeded 500 acres – adjacent to his property – to his son, William Stark (Junior) as a gift on December 21, 1713. Before this gift was made, William (Junior) had married Experience Lamb. On April 14, 1714, William (Junior) sold the property to his father-in-law, Isaac Lamb. In exchange for the land, William (Junior) purchased 50 acres located near the Mystic River from his father-in-law.

Although William (Senior) was most likely disappointed by this action, on March 3, 1715/16, he again deeded property (thirty acres) to William (Junior) as a gift – but, this time, with a deed restriction that would not allow William (Junior) to sale the property.³⁶

To all Christian people to whom this present deed of Gift may come William Stark of Groton in ye county of New London in Conecticut Collony in New England Senior sendeth Greeting know ye that I ye abovesd William Stark for ye good will and kinder affection I bear to my son William Stark Junr and my Granchild Jonathan Stark both of Groton in ye County of New London aforesd have fully freely and absolutely given granted aliened ensealled and confirmed unto William Stark Jun aforesd a certain tract of land during his naturall life and then to my grandchild Jonathan Stark aforesd and his heirs forever laying in Groton and Fuffed? & bounded as followeth (viz) adjoining easterly to Thomas Park beginning at a maple tree at a dark swamp running northerly to land adjoining to Joseph Culver and Samuell Lamb by ye brook side to a maple tree then running west and by north east upon the brook to a black oake tree marked on four sides from thence running by a l… of rocks near South about eighty rods the by ye road to the first mentioned tr by ye dark swamp it being thirty acres more or less together with all ye trees wood timber hearbidge? Rivers brooks common…edges and appurtenances to ye same belonging to him the sd William Stark Junr during his naturall life and after his decease to my Granchild Jonathan Stark and his heirs forever to thear only proper use and behooffe and ye sd William Stark aforesd do by these presents declare that he hath a good and lawfull right whereby he doth give and make convayence of ye sd land unto ye above sd Will Stark and Jonathan Stark and his heirs forever to be unto…estate of inheritance and …the sd Will Stark doth declare the sd premises are free and clear as clearly … to any part thereof from by or under him or from or by his heirs executors or administrators to the sd Will Stark and Jonathan Stark aforesd his heirs executors administrators he will warrant and forever defend In witness whereof he hath hereunto sett his hand and seal this third day of March In the second year of our Soveran Lord George King of great Briton and In ye Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifteen sixteen.

Signed: William Starke.

Signed Sealed & delivered in presence of Nehemiah Smith Junr, Hannah Smith.

Mr. William Stark the subscriber personally appeared and acknowledged the above written Instrument to be his free act and deed before me Nehemiah Smith Justice March ye 3the 1715/16

Entered to be recorded March ye 3th 1715/16.”

Jonathan Stark was born on December 10, 1712 and was the son of William Stark (Junior) and Experience Lamb. The deed allowed William (Junior) to use and improve the property during his lifetime but prevented him from selling the property. As the deed specified, Jonathan Stark became the owner of the property after William (Junior) was deceased.

On the same day as the above property transfer (March 3, 1715/16), a deed was recorded reporting that William (Senior) paid William (Junior) 125£ for 40 acres of land on January 6, 1715/16 – three months before this gift of property was made. This 40 acres was part of the 50 acres William (Junior) had purchased for 175£ from his father-in-law, Isaac Lamb, on April 1, 1714.¹⁴ We know this from the earlier deed description which mentioned: with land layed out to … Springer and towards the west with a brook commonly called Colvers brook…” In this January 6, 1715/16 deed transaction – made almost two years later – was the following description:³⁷

William Stark Senior of Groton … for 125£ … unto William Stark Junr … 40A … beginning at a bridge called by ye name of Springers bridge … 6 Jan 1715/17.

Signed: William Starke.

Wit: Danl. Eldredge. Edward Han Cox.

Ack and recd 3 Mar 1715/16."

This was indeed a generous exchange. William (Junior) received some property as a gift, along with an additional 125£ for 40 of the 50 acres of property he had purchased from Isaac Lamb. It is evident William (Senior) desired his son to have more than the 10 acres of property; the 30 acre gift located near the property of William (Senior).

On January 31, 1716/17, William (Senior) sold this same forty acres to Joseph Hadsall, a resident of Rhode Island.³⁸

“William Stark of Groton for 25£ from Joseph Hadsall of Westerly in the Collony of Rode Island … 40A … 31 Jan 1716/17.

Signed: William Stark.

Wit: Aaron Stark, Ephraim Collver.

Sergt. William Stark ack. 1 Feb 1716.

Recd 1 Feb 1716.”

Although the abstract of this deed is lacking in detail, this may have been the same forty acres William (Senior) purchased from William (Junior) one year earlier. On November 21, 1717, William (Senior) then paid Joseph Hadsall the same compensation (25£) to regain ownership of this property.³⁹

________

On the same day William Stark (Senior) sold forty acres to Joseph Hadsell, Christopher Stark (Senior) received a gift of property from his father.³⁸

“William Stark of Groton for the love good will and affection which I have unto my well beloved son Christopher Stark … give …[???A] … Isaac Foxes land …part of his portion to him …

Signed: William Starke.

Wit: Joseph Hadsall, Aabiel Stark.

Ack and Recd 31 Jan 1716/17.”

Christopher was single at the time he received this gift and would have been twenty-one years of age or older, for men under the age of twenty-one were not allowed to own land. Either one year later, or perhaps three months later, Christopher received a second portion of land.³⁹

“William Starke of Groton … for love & affection for his son Christopher Starke … give … north east corner of Isaac Foxes land at a stone marked with WS … at the countrey roade that goeth from New London to Stonington … about 100 rods eastward from sd William Starks now dwelling house on the north side of sd roade which bound is William Starks Junr corner tree … to the corner of his sd sons own land from thence bounded with his own land … reserving only that the sd William Starke shall have the premises above menshoned to possess and improve during his natural life & if sd William Starks now wife shall outlive him then she shall have the lower roome in the new house and one third part of sd land for her maintainance during her widowhood but in case she shall marey again to have nothing … 24 Mar 1716.

Signed: William Stark.

Wit: Ephraim Collver, Jonathan Collver.

Sergt William Stark ack and recd 24 Mar 1717/18.”

The deed transaction signed by William Stark states that the document was executed on “24 Mar 1716.” The deed was acknowledged by William “24 Mar 1717/18.” Did William acknowledge the deed on the same day? This cannot be determined with complete accuracy from the document. Therefore, this deed transaction either occurred on March 24, 1716/17 and was acknowledged a year later, or the transaction and acknowledgement occurred on the same day.

On March 25, 1729, William Stark (Senior) revoked the requirement placed on Christopher in order to allow William (Senior) and his wife to live on the property until both had died.⁴⁰

“Serjant William Stark of Groton Yeoman for love and affection unto my son Christopher Stark of Groton husbandman and also for the reason of the insufficiency of two deeds of gift from me to Christopher the one baring date 1717 and the other 1718 … part of my homestead … 250A … Daniel Stark’s NW corner … William Stark Junr his SW corner … Whitman’s land … Mr. Niles NE corner …. Dated 25 Mar 1729 … Recd 31 Mar 1729 …

Signed: William Stark …

Wit: Ephraim Collver, Daniel Stark, Mary X Collver her mark.”

This was most likely done in anticipation of selling the property, for on August 30, 1729, Christopher deeded the property to James Smith for the sum of 1,500£. On April 28, 1730, the same James Smith sold 121 acres to Christopher Stark for 300£.⁴¹

“Christopher Stark of Groton for 1500L by John Smith of Groton … 250A … there is about one acre and half of land within said bounds where the meeting House stands and the buriing place which sd Stark’s Father hath already sold, is excepted … 5A of salt meadow adjoining to Mistick River toward the head of it … Daniel Denison and David Collver … and also a swamp lying within sd Whitman’s Land by estimation 4A … Dated 30 Aug 1729 … Recd 8 Sep 1729 …

Signed: Christopher Stark.

Wit: Luke Perkins, Moses Fish.”

“John Smith of Groton husbandman for 15L paid by Christopher Stark of Groton … neck of the land known by the name of Navayunk Neck containing 2 and ½ acres 48th lot in the second tier of the second division … Dated 28 Apr 1730 … Recd 18 May 1730

Signed: John Smith

Wit: Samuel Burrows, Luke Perkins”

Property excluded from this transaction was the one and one-half acres deeded to the Baptist church and the property upon which the sawmill had been erected.

On August 26, 1725, William Stark (Senior) gave a lot on Fort Hill to Thomas Walworth:⁴²

"William Stark of Groton, Yeoman, for love and good will to his son in law Thomas Wallsworth of Groton, wood lot first division on Fort Hill. Dated 26 Aug 1725. Recd 27 Sep 1726.

Signed: by William Stark.

Wit: David Collver, Daniel Stark [Brother of Phebe Stark]."

This deed shows that Thomas Walworth was the son-in-law of William Stark (Senior). Because William (Senior) only had one daughter, Phebe, this transaction was most likely a gift of property to his daughter and son-in-law. This would be the first document suggesting Thomas Walworth was most likely the husband of Phebe Stark. It is also the first appearance of the name Daniel Stark. This was most likely William (Senior)’s son, who would have been twenty-one years of age or older when he witnessed this deed.

Apparently there was a problem with the deed, which was corrected March 8, 1731/32, as follows:⁴³

"Whereas through a mistake there was a wood lot or first division laid out to Sergent William Stark late of Groton now Deceased as may appear by a survey bareing date June the 26 1721 on a place called fort hill in sd Groton and was called his right which was a mistake for Some years before the laying out of sd Lot on sd fort hill he the sd Wm. Stark had sold all his right and Title in all the Common undivided land in the Township of Groton aforesd -----as appears on record therefore we the ----- Committee being chosen and Impowered to let the Common and undevided land in Groton according to a voat of sd Town passed April 16, 17?? Have laid out to Thomas Wallsworth of Lebenon one woodlot in first Division that was originally the right of Isaac Fox late of sd Groton now of Norwich and by purchase is now the right of sd Thomas Wallsworth as appears on Record and is laid out on fort hill aforesd on the place where the abovesd lot was laid through mistake as before mentioned is bounded as followeth beginning at a rock marked W S which was South East corner of the Two rod way and adjoining in the four rod highway with the North East End of sd Two rod --- Joyening abovesd and by sd four rod high way on the west side the … 8 Mar 1731/2.

Signed: Joshua Bill, Samuel Lester, Luke Perkins, Comtee.

Recd 26 Oct 1732.”

Daniel Stark received a gift of property from his father May 6, 1728.⁴⁴

" William Stark of Groton husbandman for love and affection for son Daniel Stark do give part of my homestead south of the Contary [Probably County Road] Road Mr. Niles his orchard.... Thomas Wells... 100A. Dated 6 May 1728.

Recd: 28 May 1728.

Signed: William Stark.

Wit: Ephraim Collver, William Gard”

Daniel could have possibly married Sarah Culver in this year or soon after – for this may have been a wedding gift to the newly wedded couple. Sarah Culver was most likely the daughter of Joseph Culver (Junior) and Mary Stark, and so Daniel’s cousin. Mary Stark was the daughter of Aaron Stark (Junior) and Mehitable Shaw.

________

The first of these boundary challenges came when Isaac Fox became the husband of Hannah Stark. According to the Groton Township vital records, Elizabeth Stark married John Newbury on April 5, 1707, and Elizabeth’s sister, Hannah Stark, married Isaac Fox a few days later, on April 21, 1707.⁴⁵ Both women were daughters of John Stark. A deed dated November 20, 1708, transferred Elizabeth Stark’s share of her father’s estate to Isaac Fox.⁴⁶

"John Nuberry of Groton, weaver, for a valuable sum of money paid by Isaack Fox of Groton yeoman, sell, one messuage tenement of land, being in the town of Groton lying by and partly on the hill west of William Starks, be the number of acres, more or less which land came to me by the heirship of my wife formerly Elizabeth Stark daughter to John Stark late of New London, deceased, which land lyes undivided between me and my brother Isaack Fox of Groton aforesd that is to say I John Nubery do sell to Isaack Fox … 20 Nov 1708.

Signed: John Newberry, Elizabeth A. Newberry her mark.

Wit: Nehemiah Smith Junr, Andrew Davis.

Ack: 20 Nov 1708 and recd 5 Jan 1708/9."

The property of William Stark (Senior) shared a boundary with this property and to confirm the accuracy of the boundaries, William and Isaac had the boundary surveyed and recorded on December 20, 1710.⁴⁷

"William Stark and Isaac Fox all of Groton … that the bounds hereafter in this writing mentioned shall forever … the bounds of the land of John Starke deceased now in the possession of the said Isaac Fox … this is our mutuall and finall agreement and determination we have hereunto sett our hands & seals in Groton aforsd this [blank] day of [blank] in the ninth year of her majesties reign anno domini 1710.

Signed: William Starke, Isaac Fox.

Wit: Valentine Wightman, William Stark Juner.

Recd. 20 Dec 1710."

When William’s brother, Aaron Stark (Junior), died about 1698, most of the property Aaron (Junior) had inherited in 1685 was passed to his son of the same name, Aaron Stark [the third]. This property also shared a boundary with William Stark (Senior). John Morgan, William Morgan, and Jonathan Williams were appointed by Nehemiah Smith to determine the dividing line. On April 29, 1721, they prepared and signed the following document, which was intended to settle the dispute.⁴⁸

We underwritten free holders of ye town of Groton & Stoningtown being appointed by Nehemiah Smith Esqr. One of his majestie's justices of the peace … to fix a deviding lane between mr. William Stark of sd Groton and his Cozen Aron Stark son to Aron Stark decd ye brother of ye sd William Stark according to ye last will & testament of Mr. Aron Stark decd. Father to ye above said Brothers ye boundary --- being lost and we being sworn according to that Law page 246 to a faithfull discharge of our duly and having heard ye severall pleas made to them & Evedences given in and informed our selves by Runing dividing lines by ye Surveyors We have fixed and stated the deviding line between ye sd William Stark and his Cozen Aron Stark as follows to say Aron Stark his land on ye west & William Stark's Land on ye East We began on a Ledge of Rock South Westerly from ye now dwelling house of sd William Stark in Sight of his house at an old ---- that by ye brinck of ye Ledge by a Rock wch a heap of stones by itt to --- Living Evedences to be ye north East Corner of ye Land given by sd Will to Aaron stark decd. Thence to Run a South Line two hundred & Twenty Six Rods by marked trees to another stone standing by a whit oak tree markt with ye Leters M MM W wch Line is the Deviding line between the parties as Wittness our hands & sealls this 29th of Aprill anno 1721.

Present: John Plumb Surr.

Signed: John Morgan, William Morgan, Jno. Williams.

However, soon after this dividing line was proposed, Aaron Stark [the third] purchased (on May 9, 1721) the Isaac Fox property mentioned earlier for 400£.⁴⁹ Combining Aaron [the third]’s property with Isaac Fox’s property most likely reopened the earlier dispute. Both parties apparently returned to the committee with renewed arguments; finally, on June 5, 1721, William (Senior) and Aaron [the third] agreed to the boundaries by signing the following document:⁴⁹

“Whereas there has been a great difference & controversy between Wm. Starke of Groton … on one part & Aron Stark of Groton aforesd on ye other part about & confirming ye boundary of their land as to settling ye bounds between them according to ye Last will & Testement of Aron Stark late of New London deseased father of ye above sd Aron Stark Be it known to all people whom it may Come in that these artickels of agreement made & finished this fifth day of June in ye year 1721 … ye abovesd parties have mutually & Loveingly agreed for each of our selves and our heirs after us upon a dividing line & bounds between us to stand good for ever as followith viz beginning att a ----- stone …. Near a white oak tree standing at ye west end of Thomas Parkes his Land & so running westerly 23 rods to another meet stone att ye west end of a great Swamp & from thence twenty one rods to a meer stone ye east side of a pond so to run westerly throught ye pond sixteen rods to a heap of stones upon ye south west end of a small ledge of rocks & from thence westerly 41 rods to a great ledge of rocks to a meer stone by a great rock wth stones upon it ye ledge being in sight of ye above sd Wm. Starks now dwelling house to ye southward of sd house and from sd rock with stones upon it across ye ledge westerly to a meer stone by and … devided between Isaac F???? & sd Wm. Stark … we ye abovesd Wm. Stark & Aron Stark do mutually agee upon … Wm. Stark doth for my self … aquit all my right … land that was my father Aron Starkes to ye southward of ye aforesaid dividing line & ye sd Wm. Stark also aquit my right title & interest as aforesd to all ye land said Aron Stark bought of Isaac F??? … sd Wm. Stark … sd Aron Stark do by these presents aquit all my right title … unto land or lands that was my grandfathers Aron Starks which is to ye north of ye aforesaid dividing line and further I the sd Aron Stark do by these presents promise …

Signed: William Stark, Aron Stark.

Wit: Nehemiah Smith, Thomas Chipman, James Chipman.

Ack and recd 5 Jun 1721.”

On November 25, 1721, just five months later, Aaron Stark [the third] sold both properties to Nathaniel Niles (Junior), as stated in the following deed abstract:⁵⁰

Aaron Starke of Groton for 1800£ paid by Nathanael Niles Junr of KingsTown in Rhode Island … sold … two tracts of land … 460A of upland & also of fresh meadow joining to ye same containing 30A … bounded by lands of ye widow Wallsworth … Gideon Cobb … Capt. Samll. Fish … on ye hill called Wolfpit Hill … Thomas Wells … lands of William Starkes … & Margret Starke ye wife of me ye said Aaron Starke doth give all her right of dowry & power of thirds … 25 Nov 1721.

Signed: Aaron Starke, Margret Starke.

Wit: Samll Avery, William Starke, John Starke.

Ack and recd 25 Nov 1721.

Therefore, by the end of 1721, William Stark (Senior) and his sons still owned portions of the original homestead of Aaron Stark (Senior), but the properties inherited by his other sons, John and Aaron (Junior), had new owners. During 1721, Aaron Stark [the third] appears to have been divesting himself of all of his property in Groton township in anticipation of a move to Colchester Township, Connecticut, for on September 25, 1725, a deed shows that Aaron Stark [the third] was a resident of Colchester.⁵¹

________

As mentioned earlier, William Stark (Senior) purchased from William Stark (Junior), 40 acres of the 50 acres William (Junior) had obtained from his father-in-law, Isaac Lamb.¹⁴ On January 31, 1716/17, William (Senior) sold this property to Joseph Hadsall for 25£.³⁸ Mary Hadsell was one of the dissenters reported in the Baptist Church petition to the General Court of Connecticut dated October 4, 1704. The surname Hadsall appearing in these surviving documents was the source of the following speculation by Helen Stark in the 1937 Stark family Association Year Book.⁴

“And who was the wife, Elizabeth? [Referring to the wife of William Stark (Senior).]. I have long felt that the list of petitioners for that first church might be the key to her identity. The Culvers, the Lambs and the Starks were Groton families and we know something at least about them. But who were the teachers, Daniel Pearce, William and Margaret Chubbs, John Hammett, and Mary Hadsall, the other petitioners? Did they, too, live in Groton? Where did they come from? How long did they stay in Groton? I so much want to know what the Groton records tell about each of them. The next list of church records gives none of them. And in wondering about them I discovered that Joseph Hadsall of Westerly bought land from William Stark, though he soon sold it back again. It was land in Groton, sold by William January 31, 1716-17, the same day upon which William first deeded land to his son Christopher, and Joseph Hadsall was a witness to this deed to Christopher. And then I noted further that while William was constantly buying and selling land, Joseph Hadsall is the only Rhode Island man with whom he had any land dealings. Has this any significance?

Then I looked for any Hadsall family which included a Mary and Elizabeth and a Joseph. I found one at Gloucester, Mass. Joseph Hadsall married Mary Graves. They had Mary, born in 1676, Elizabeth 1679, Joseph 1681, and one other son. Nothing was found about their moving to Westerly or Groton and different ancestries of Joseph of Westerly have been given me, though there seems no certain line for him. Elizabeth, born in 1679, could not possibly have been mother of a child born in 1691, but one born in 1698 would certainly be possible.

All this is too vague to be called a theory, but when there are no real clues one grasps at straws. But I should very much like to have these first church members looked up, and very especially, Mary Hadsall. (Groton and Stonington Deeds, Savage’s Genealogical Dictionary)”

The given names for the Hadsall family mentioned in Helen’s theory suggest that Mary Hadsall may have been a widow and Elizabeth’s mother; she was most likely living with her daughter in 1704. Joseph Hadsall of the later deeds could have been Elizabeth’s brother – the above Joseph Hadsall reported to have been born in 1681. Although this is an interesting theory, the fact that Christopher received his first property from his father on January 31, 1716/1717, suggests that he was born at least twenty-one years earlier (before January 31, 1695/96). If Elizabeth was born in 1679, she would have been about sixteen or seventeen years old by January of 1695/96 – not an impossible age to have given birth to Christopher; but she is unlikely to have been the mother of William Stark (Junior) if he was born before 1688, as suggested earlier. Again, we cannot discount the possibility Elizabeth’s surname was Hadsall and William Stark (Senior) was married to two women, but neither theory can be supported by the surviving documents found at the time of this publication.

On November 21, 1717, William (Senior) paid Joseph Hadsall the same compensation of 25 pounds to regain ownership of this property.⁵²

"Joseph Hadsall of Westerly in the Collony of Rode Island yeoman for 25L from William Stark of Grotton … 40A in Grotton … 21 Nov 1717. Signed Joseph Hadsall. Wit Hannah Fox, John Lambe. Ack and recd 18 Dec 1717."

On August 19, 1723, there were a series of deed transactions that are a bit baffling. On this date, Christopher Stark (Senior) paid William (Senior) 300£ for a 150-acre tract of land that was apparently part of the original Aaron Stark (Senior) homestead.⁵³

“William Stark Senr of Gorton yeoman for 300L by Christopher Stark of same … 150A … Christopher Stark’s corner, Mr. Nyles land, Thos. Wools’ land. Dated 19 Aug 1723 …

Recd 20 Aug 1723

Signed by William Stark …

Wit: Valentine Whighman, David Collver”

On the same day, William Stark (Senior) then paid Christopher 200£ for a parcel of land in approximately the same region.⁵³

“Christopher Stark of Groton yeoman for 200L paid by Sergt. William Stark … Mr. Nyles corner, land sd Nyles bought of Mr. Aaron Stark … Mr. Whitman’s south line. 19th day, 10th year of his majesties reign 1723. …

Recd 20 Aug 1723

Signed: by Christopher Stark …

Wit: Valentine Wightman, David Culver”

And then there was this property transaction, also on that date:⁵³

“Know all men that I Christopher Stark of the Town of Groton for a valuable consideration paid in hand by my father William Stark … 4A … SE corner of land that Whitman bought of my father which was formerly Mr. John Slaters?? Dated 19 Aug 1723 …

Recd 20 Aug 1723

Signed: by Christopher Stark …

Wit: Jonathan Hinckley, John Smith”

On October 13, 1726, there was this deed of exchange between Christopher and William (Senior):⁵⁴

The description appears to be the same 150 acres Christopher purchased from William (Senior) on August 19, 1723, for 300£ . In exchange, Christopher received the property William (Senior) purchased for 200£, plus the same 4 acres described above.⁵⁴ What would have been the purpose of these deed exchanges?

________

On February 7, 1726/27, just three months after these deed exchanges, William Stark (Senior) prepared and signed his Last Will and Testament, which included the following statement:⁵⁵

“I give and bequeath unto my son Daniel Starke all my Lands to the South of the Countey Road bounded as May appear by a Deed of Exchange from Christopher however otherways Bounded on Record and half my husbandray Tools.”

Although William (Senior) had prepared his Will in February of 1726/27, he did not die until September of 1730. On May 6, 1728, most likely about when Daniel Stark married Sarah Culver, William (Senior) deeded 100 acres of this property to Daniel as a wedding gift. A marriage would seem a reasonable presumption, for Daniel was at least 21 years of age on August 26, 1726, when he witnessed the gift of land to Thomas Walworth. William (Senior) most likely retained until his death the remaining 50 acres, which then passed to Daniel as his second portion of land when William (Senior) died in 1730.

Recall that William (Senior) had deeded property to his son-in-law, Thomas Walworth, on August 26, 1726. William (Senior) purchased the property from William Walworth, who we learn from the following was the brother of Thomas Walworth:⁵⁶

“William Wallsworth of Groton yeoman, for 14 sheep and 10L from William Stark of Groton, yeoman, a wood lot, first division “rock marked W.S.” … laid out on Fort Hill by Samll Lester, Nehemiah Smith Esq. & Joshua Bill … Dated 21 Mar 1724/5 …

Recd 25 Sep 1725 …

Signed: by William Wallsworth

Wit: John Smith, Elizabeth Avery”

William Stark (Senior) prepared and signed his Last Will and Testament on February 7th, 1726. William (Senior) may have been in poor health from the time he made his Will until his eventual death September 8, 1730. He appeared to be disposing of his property after making his Will, and Christopher seems to have benefited the most – at least as measured by the numerous gifts of property and deed exchanges with his father. On March 22nd, 1727, for a total of 255 pounds, Christopher purchased 100 additional acres from his father and one right of a share in the after divisions of the commons or undivided land in the township of Groton, along with another tract of land lying in the township.⁵⁷

William named Christopher Stark and Thomas Chipman as executors of his estate. William’s wife was to receive 1/3 of his estate during her natural life. Named in the will were his other children: William Stark (Junior), Daniel Stark, and Phebe (Stark) Walsworth.⁵⁵ On September 8, 1730, William Stark, Sr., died and was buried in his plot, which had been set aside in the deed with the Baptist Church and which would later be known as the "Wightman Burying Ground."

From all indications, William was a person of means within the community of Groton. Although the community had opposed the founding of the Baptist congregation, William's rather large land holdings and sawmill probably commanded his neighbors’ respect. This was most likely one of several factors that enabled the little Baptist Church to survive and prosper in Groton. William was undoubtedly a generous man who gave land to each of his children as gifts when they were old enough; he also contributed to the community of Groton in a like way throughout his life. The community, church, and his children were all benefactors of his generosity.

________

The above acct & payments wth and? Resept the sd C. Stark made oath to 59-12-10 the Excutr made an adition to the Inventory. In debts recd due to sd Estate wch amounts to the sum of 33-10-0 The Inventory of sd Estate taken before amount to the sum of 107-2-2??? Inventory now amounts to the Sum of 140-12-2 The Executor pd in Legacys to the Children & widow and of the personal Inventory [hard to read] 82-10-11[hard to read]

To Charles Chamben Esqr.

Att Charlestown

Pr post

Serjt. William Starke D. (due) To John Ledyard [copy]

1729 Octo 26 To ? yds Sayloom ……L 0-11-2

1730 Aug 24 To 1 pair Cards …0-11-6

Total= 1-2-8

July ye 4 Day 1731; Then Recevid of Christopher Stark upon his fathers a Count (account) Seven Shillings and 2 pence I Say Receivd my me James Ashbye.

Total= 0-7-2

Groton, September the 22d 1730; Then Recived of Christopher Starke and Thomas Chipman as Executors to the Last will and Testament of William Starke Late of Groton, Deceased, the sum of Thirty Six pounds, nine shillings, and Six pence, which is part of the Legesy given to me in said will I say received by me as Wittness my hand the Day and year above said, Thomas Wallworth

In presence of us, Jos. Belton, Dn Stark

Total= 36-9-6

[Author's Comment: Thomas Wallworth was the husband of Phebe Stark, daughter of William Stark. Thomas would have been William's son-in-law.]

Received this 15th of January 1732/3 of Mr. Christopher Stark the full Sum of two Pounds, Eight Shillings, it being for my Tendance & Medicines For his Father William Stark deceast I say Received by me in full of All Accompts from the Beginning of The World to this Day. John Wilson

Total= 2-8-0

1731 Augs 2 day then received of Christopher Stark on his fathers account 15-13-11 which is in full of all accounts I say received by me John Wallsworth

Total= 15-13-11

May ye 22 1731; Then I William Stark received of Christopher Stark the sume of nine pound mony and goods I say received by me William Stark received upon the acount of mony that was dew from William Stark desesesed.

Total= 9-0-0

Groton, Octobar the 16 day 1731; Then Received of Mr. Christopher Stark Exsetor to his fathers William Starks ???? the Sum of Sixteen pounds, Sixteen Shilings, and a Leveny pence, which was ?? tome from Mr. William Starke to ballonce ?? accounts. I say received by me. John Smith

Total= 16-16-11

In presence of us Jos Belton, Daniel Stark

Total= 36-13-6

March ye first 1732; Then resevid of Christopher Stark the husbandry tulls (tools) that was given me which is 2-10-0 resevid by me. Daniel Stark

Total= 2-10-0

N. Londn Feby 7, 1731/2; Recd of Christopher Stark thirteen shillings, Pr me in full of What is due from ye Estate of his Father Will Stark decd Pr. Edwd. Robinson

Total= 0-13-0

Reseved this 30th of May 1731 of Christopher Stark the full sume of twelve pound, foore shillings, and six pence, reseved it upon his fathers acount I say reseved by me. Mary X Wallsworth her mark

Total= 12-4-6

Norwich, Fabuery ye 2 1731/2; Racaved of Christyphor Start of Groten, fouer pound, and five pence on acompt of Mr. William Starts Dabt Dacesed in full of said acompt I say Racaved by me. John Williams

Total= 4-0-5

March ye first 1732; Then reseved of Christopher Stark seven shillings upon his fathers account reseved by me, Elishe Gard, February ye 28 1732 then resevid of Christopher Stark upon his fathers acount ?-10-6I resevid by me

John Ashcrafts

Total= ?-?-?

Groton, May the 25 1731; Then Received of Christopher Start five shillings and six pence upon the acount of his fathers Contry Rate Pr me Robert Allyn Constable

Total= 0-5-6

Groton, January ye 5, 1731/2; Resevid of Christopher Stark ye sum of 0-5-5 upon ye acoumpt of his fathers rate deseased Resevid by me Nathan Fish Collector

Total= 0-5-5

I William Stark son of William Stark desesed have resevived all the waring aparill which was given meby will which amounts to the sume of 6-17-11 say received by me. William Stark

Total= 6-17-11