4. SAMUEL COMSTOCK21,22,23,24 was born in 1629 in England.25 He was baptized on 26 April 1629 in St Margaret of Uxbridge, Middlesex, England. He immigrated between 1638 and 1640. SAMUEL died about 1657 at the age of 28 in Providence, Providence County, Rhode Island.22
Ancestry.com: "London, England, Baptisms, Marriages & Burials, 1538-1812"
Baptisms at Hillingdon, Uxbridge St Margaret
1629, 26 Apr Samuell, sonne to Willm Coomestock and Elizabeth uxor
Note: "uxor" is Latin for wife
The proof that Samuel is a son of William on this side of the Atlantic, is circumstantial rather than direct. John and Daniel are proved by a Deed of 4 Dec 1694 when two grandsons convey land of their grandfather William Comstock. Daniel and Samuel had adjoining lots in Providence - Daniel named a son Samuel and Samuel named a son Daniel. Samuel is in the court records at Hartford CT along with William in 1648/49. There are a few other records that indicate a connection and no other Comstocks in the area to be considered.
[A marriage in RI is very doubtful for the date seen as about 1652 (I suspect the marriage was at least two years later); if it took place in CT - the marriage records for New London are lost for this time period. There is no proof for Anne's surname as "Tucker" that I have been able to locate - I believe I have found proof it was certainly not Tucker - see later. The marriage may have taken place in New Amsterdam.]
From: NEW ENGLAND FAMILIES GENEALOGICAL & MEMORIAL, Series 1, by William Richard Cutter. Samuel gave recognizance 1 Mar 1648 at Hartford CT "for ten days of good behavior and for satisfying what damage Mr. Robbins shall sustain for the want of his servant", perhaps indication that Samuel was apprenticed to Mr. Robbins.
The above record is also in the Connecticut Court Records, Vol. 1, p.177. And Bray Rosseter was also charged with assuring Samuel Comstock would do so. On 24 Apr 1649 [Actually the next month after March of 1648 in the old style dating] the Court and Mr. Robins freed Samuel Comstock and Bray Rosseter from both and either of their "Recogniscances".
In 1653 Samuel Comstock went in the "Swallow", a frigate, to Block Island and took the goods and people belonging to a Dutch captain to New London CT.
The McAdams book gave the details on this affair. The court files of Essex Co MA, record that Capt Kempe Sybando of Pequot [New London] brought suit 15 Oct 1653, at Boston against Edward Hull, Walter Joy and Thomas Gould for taking his goods in his trading house at Block Island. William Baker & his wife Mary testified that they were at Sybando's when Samuel Comstock & others came up to the house; that Samuel Comstock said he had a warrant from the Gov. of Connecticut [John Winthrop] to fetch them off the island because there was likely to be a war between the Dutch and the English. Baker dared not resist a Governor's warrant so prepared, helped carry the goods aboard. When they came aboard he told them Sybando had been taken at Connecticut by Edward Hull and we were taken as a prize, together with the goods, showing me a large piece of parchment he said was his commission. They promised to set me and my wife ashore where we wanted, so they set us ashore at Pequot. When Mr. Winthrop had examined me, he commanded me and Mr. Daniel to go aboard and take account of the goods. The master was absent, and neither him nor the key would be found. Dated at Warwick, 28 Aug 1653. Francis Bennett swore in Court on the same day that he and Samuel Comstock did jointly and severally buy of Richard George of Boston, the bark called the Swallow, whereof Edward Hull was master.
Ralph Earle Sr of Portsmouth, RI deposed that Samuel Comstock came to Rhode Island with Edward Hull on the bark "Swallow". Samuel Comstock was owner of 1/8 part and employed in and on this bark against the Dutch. Comstock sold his interest to Ralph Earle who sold the 1/8 part of all prizes due or taken to Edward Hull. Ack. before Wm. Stebbens, 12 Sep 1653.
In some of the court proceeding, Edward Hull is referred to as a pirate. He kept two-thirds of the bounty.
Strangely enough, another ancestor of mine, Walter Joy, was apparently a partner of Edward Hull's in the affair of the "Swallow". Samuel Comstock was my 9th great-grandfather in my maternal grandfather's family; Walter Joy was my 8th great-grandfather in my maternal grandmother's family. Here is the account I found while researching Joy in the Massachusetts records:
Records & Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County Massachusetts, Vol. 1, 1636-1656, Published by the Essex Institute, Salem, MA, 1911
p.313 Court held at Salem 29:9:1653 [This is the 9th month - November. The writ above by Capt Kempo Sebanda [his name is spelled various ways] against Robert Hull, Walter Joy, and Thomas Guild was actually dated 28:7:1653 - September - a copy was record in Boston Court a month later.] Capt. Kempo Seibada v. Robert & John Hull, part owners of the barque Swallow, frigott, under command of Edward Hull, pirate, for damages to goods taken out of his house at Block Island by Edward Hull, value 96£. Defendants were receivers of part of the booty and concealers of Edward Hull's estate. The verdict was for the defendants [and against the Dutch....].
The Writ of 28:7:1653, was served as an attachment of the ship. For want of security, Thomas Gold & Walter Joy were committed to prison.
Sebanda had also served a writ to Robert & John Hull, 17:9:1653. They gave bond for appearance at Salem court.
A Petition to the General Assembly at Portsmouth, 17 Aug 1653, Capt. Sybando v. Edward Hull, stated that the goods taken were valued at 200£ sterling. She was taken the 18th or 19th of April. Verdict was found for the plaintiff and the vessel adjudged not to be a prize, as she was taken without a commission.
Walter Joy deposed he was employed by Capt. Edward Hull to bring the Swallow from Rhode Island to Boston, which Hull said had been commissioned by Rhode Island to command against the Dutch and the bark was ordered by Edward Hull to be delivered to Robert & John Hull, along with some goods and bills of exchange. Mr. Wilkes, master of the Swallow, delivered the bills together with the bark. Edward Hull received two-thirds of all the goods.
Ralph Earle Sr of Portsmouth, deposed that Samuel Comstock came to Rhode Island with Edward Hull and Comstock was 1/8 owner and was employed on it upon a man-of-war design against the Dutch. Comstock sold his interest to Ralph Earle who sold it to Edward Hull. Josias Wilkes was to deliver to Robert & John Hull, the back, with a parcel of linen cloth, mathematical instruments, etc.
William Baker gave the list of articles which were delivered to him at Block Isalnd by Sybanda, part of which was sold for fish & wampum. The fish & wampum and what was left of the goods, Capt. Edward Hull's company took away. William & his wife Mary testified that Samuel Comstock and others came to the house and had water & tobacoo, saying they had not seen or heard of Kempo Sybanda. Comstock told Baker he had a warrant from the Gov. of Connecticut to fetch them off the island because there was likely to be war. Baker helped carry the goods aboard, only after he was aboard was he tole Sybanda had been taken and that he himself was prize together with the good. Baker and his wife were set ashore at Pequott.
Francis Bennet, aged 30 years, testified that he and Samuel Comstock bought of Richard George, one quarter of the bark, Swallow, Edward Hull, master. Sworn in court 26:8:1653.
Samuel Edsall of Boston, aged 18 years, deposed that last spring & summer Edward Hull went in the Swallow and deponent assisted in taking all the vessels that Hull took. Hull received two-thirds of all he took. Thomas Gold & Walter Joy were of Hull's company when they took Capt. Sybanda and his goods from Block Island. He heard Ralph Earle had sold an eighth part of the barque. Sworn in court, 26:8:1653.
Lawrence Turner, of Rhode Island, aged 32 years, deposed that the Swallow was the same vessel then lying in Master Joshua Scotowes dock. That Edward Hull received two thirds of all the goods he took, one third for the vessel and the other for victualling. That Walter Joy & Thomas Gould were with Hull from the beginning of their design at Rhode Island until they took the French prize at the same place and his departure for England. Sworn 17:8:1653.
Testimony revealed that Robert Hull was a brother, and John Hull, the father, to Edward Hull. They insisted they disapproved of the activities of Edward and had asked him to stop; he had told them he had a commission; if they had protested he threatened they would never see him or the vessel again, they had not been responsible for taking away Sebanda's goods and not profited in any way. They had in fact lost the profit of the Swallow for the whole summer.
A frigate, or barque, was a three masted ship, square-rigged. They were used as warships with lighter armament. The navy of Dutch Republic was the first navy to build the larger ocean-going frigates around 1600. The fleets built by the Commonwealth of England [presumably used in the Colonies] in the 1650s consisted of ships described as frigates. Some were two-decker great frigates carrying as many as 60 guns, other were cruisers, independent fast ships - which would most likely have been most useful to pirates. The term frigate implied a long hull which relates directly to speed.
In the fall of September 1654, a Samuel Cromstock and Anna Tchuys were arrested and convicted in New Amsterdam, for adultery. The original records are in Dutch but have been translated. At the NEHGS library in Boston I found the manuscript collection of Samuel W. Comstock who had furnished much of the information to John A. Comstock for his book on the Comstock family. Samuel W. did not interpret the following in the same way and somehow Anna, or Anne's, name became "Tucker". Whether or not this man can be the same as Samuel Comstock of Providence, it seems certain the lady was not his wife - unless she left her husband following the incident. And Samuel "Cromstock" was already married himself.
New York Historical Manuscripts Dutch, Vol. V, Council Minutes, 1652-1654, Translated & Edited by Charles T. Gehring, Genelogical Publishing Co, Inc., Baltimore, 1983.
p.172 "Fiscal Cornelis van Thiehooven brought to the session Samuel Cromstock, presently a prisoner, who confesses and admits that he was found between the 28th and 29th of August at night along the Heere Wech near Jan Vinje's house against the clapboards or fence lying upon Anna Tchuys [wife of Nathaniel Tchuys]; she had her clothes pulled up and her body bared and he Samuel Cromstock, had his pants undone. He was taken away from there by the provost marshal, Arent van Vlieringen. The case is postposed until the next session. Thus done at the seesion of the honorable director-general and high council held in New Amsterdam, 28 August 1654 in New Netherland." At this time New York City was still called New Amsterdam and the state, New Netherlands.
p.173 "Cornelis van Thienhooven, fiscal, plaintiff against Anna Tchuys, presently a prisoner. The fiscal charges that she was found between the 28th and 29th of August at night along the Heere Wech near the house of Jan Vinje lying on her back against the clapboards with her skirts pulled up and her body bared; on top of her was Samuel Cromstock with his pants undone. Anna Tchuys falls on her knees and begs for mercy, claiming that Cromstock had done no more. She is ordered to be taken away until the next session."
p.180 "The honorable director-general and high council of New Netherland have seen the charge of the fiscal against Anna Tchuys, being a married woman and presently a prisoner for having committed adultery with Samuel Cromstock, being a married man, along the Heeren Street under the naked sky between the 28th and 29th of August, last past, at night around 12 o'clock, which the fiscal had confirmed with three witnesses at the session; whereupon, according to form, Anna Tchuys was heard in full session by the director-general and council, and after she had heard and seen the depositions, voluntarily and without pain and bonds, confessed that she had committed adultery with the afroesaid Samuel Cromstock, which crime, being confessed, demands punishment according to the form and custom of our fatherland. Therefore, the honorable direct-general and council of New Netherland, in the name and on behalf of the honorable High Mightinesses, the lords States-General of the United Netherlands and the honorable lords-directors of the General Chartered West India Company, lords and patroons of this province, having judged the aforesaid Anna Tchuys, have condemned, as the aforesaid director-general and council, do hereby condemn her to be brought to the place where justice is customarily carried out, and there, together with Samuel Cromstock, to be placed in the pillory; and, in addition, to pay a fine according to the ordinance, as an example to others; and with failure to pay, they shall be beaten with rods. Thus done at the session held in New Amsterdam, 2 Sept 1654; present the honorable director-general and all the councillors."
On the same day, the case against Samuel Cromstock "being a married man and presently a prisoner for having committed adultery with Anna Tchuys" was judged. Samuel also confessed and the same punishment was meted out.
Not only did Samuel W. Comstock apparently misunderstand the marital status of the couple above, he also seems to have the wrong year and misunderstood the punishment. When he wrote to John A. Comstock for the Comstock Family in Anerica" book he said this:
"Samuel Comstock in 1653 was arrested in New Amsterdam [New York City] for a misdemeanor with Ann, and tried, and both ordered a number of lashes or be married."
and a note on the back of the John A. Comstock's worksheet, also in the handwriting of Samuel W. Comstock was:
"Samuel 2 The chances are he married Ann Tuches [I prob. Have not spelled it correctly - I think Dutch and means another name in English, the New York records if I remember give both - Samuel Crumstock in 1653 was arrested in New Amsterdam [my city] for a mistermenior (sic- he meant misdemeanor) with Ann, and tried and both ordered a number of lashes or be married, I have a Photostat of the case, 4 large pages, the above is a substance of it anyway"
Samuel W. Comstock's handwriting is very small and cramped, but I had no trouble reading the name as "Tuches" which is fairly close to the "Tchuys" in the translated record. However an archivist at NEHGS made nearly the same mistake as John A. Comstock in interpreting SWC's handwriting and said it was "Tucher".
On the same page, John A Comstock, wrote the lady's name as Ann ?Tucker.
It cannot be said with certainty that the incident above did involve this Samuel Comstock of Providence. Particularly if he was part of the Block Island incident in 1653, he could easily have been in New Amsterdam in 1654. The date of his son Daniel's birth is known to be 12 May 1656 [or 57] from the records of his indenture in 1662, and it has been assumed the son Samuel was born first [ca 1654 or earlier] since by about 1657-58, Samuel of Providence had died. It is doubtful that the married lady involved was Anne, wife of Samuel of Providence, that married John Smith following Samuel's death. In 1654 she may have been pregnant or already had a young baby. The lady in New Amsterdam was presumably Dutch and Samuel's wife Anne apparently had no difficulties speaking English when she came before the town council in Providence and she well understood the government of the town. Also the lady in New Amsterdam was already married in August of 1654 to Nathaniel Tchuys, or at least claimed to be. Her name was definitely not Tucker. It is possible that the Samuel Comstock, or Cromstock, involved in both incidents with the Dutch was not this same man of Providence at all. However, given the climate of the times it is possible this is Samuel and Ann. Rhode Island was something of a mecca for pirates and smugglers; obviously the "Swallow" was not simply a merchant ship. Samuel & Anne may well have been caught in a compromising situation and were not totally truthful about their martial status. There would certainly have been a language barrier and the Dutch law somewhat different.
Mar 1, 1654/55, bought a home lot of 4 acres in the northerly part of Providence from John Smith the mason, who later married his widow according to the Comstock books. [My research of the Early Town Records of Providence has shown that the widow married the SON of John Smith, the mason, also named John Smith, called Jameco. John Smith, the mason, lived until about 1687 and was always married to his original wife, Elizabeth.]
The Early Records of the Town of Providence:
Vol. II, p.17 Providence, the 7th of June. John Smith of Providence, Mason, Sold unto Samuel Comstock, his house and house lott, with the Appurt. their unto belonging as is Manefessted by a deede under John Smith his hand, this Saide deed beareing date March the 1st, 1654. This house lott is bounded on the East with the Comon, on ye west with ye high way)
Vol XV, p. 71 6 Aug 1655. Richard Waterman asks the Deputy of Providence to serve an execution upon the goods or Cattel of Sam. Cumbstock of Providence to ye vallue of 24s 8p for a bill of Charge in behalfe of Bartholmew Hunt.
Vol II, p.84 2 Aug 1655 Tho. Olney, Tho. Harris, Arthur Fenner & Rog. Williams to settle the bounds between Sam. Comstock & Robt Colwell.
Vol I, p.42 1658 Laid out to Robert Colwell a house lot bounded on the North with the land of Anna Smith (which was was formerly John Smith, Mason's) Note: Samuel's widow already married to young John "Jameco" Smith.
Vol I, p.58-59 4 May 1661 Anne Smith, widow, formerly wife unto John Smith and also unto Samuel Comstock sold to Roger Mawrey the house and home share of land (4 acres) which formerly belonged to John Smith, mason, and was purchased of the said John Smith by her husband Samuel Comstock. Land bounded on the North with home share of Robert Colwell and on the South by Roger Mawrey.
Vol. III, p.40-41 28 Sep 1663 John Smith (Mason) hath desired of this Towne to change 6 1/2 acres of Land lieing in the neck, over against the East End of the house lott which formerly belonged unto John Clawson it lieing betweene the said howse lott formerly belonging to Clawson & the great Swamp; to change for a five aker lott which was by will of the Towne Coucell given unto the Two sones of Samuell Comstock (deceased) formerly inhabetant of this Towne; The said John Smith desiring the Exchange with this proviso: that in Case the aforsaid two sons of Samuell Comstock when they Com to age doe asent unto the said Exchange; then for the said John Smith to injoy the aforsaid five akers, and the two youthes the said six 1/2 akers aforspecified. But in Case the said youthes when they Come to age doe aprehend they are damniffied by said Exchange: Then for the said John Smith to Resine up the said five akers of Land unto the said youths; And the said John Smith to receive the aforsaid 6 1/2 of Land again with this provizo: the said Exchange is granted by the Towne.
Vol. III:206-7 7 Mar 1671 Deed of sale. Stephen Paine of Rehoboth sold to Samuel Whipple three house lots, with a dwelling house, and all of the out housing standing upon the lots, which Stephen Paine purchased from Mary Mowry, executor of the estate of her deceased husband Roger Mowry. One lot originally belonged to Daniel Comstock, one to John Smith, and one to Richard Prey, all of Providence. Also one right of commoning, one 25 acre right of commoning both reaching westward as the seven mile line. [Rec. 21 Sep 1671]
Vol XV, p. 173-174 Ordered 4 Jun 1677 "vewe" of all the books which belong to ye sd Towne reveals "The Towne Counsells will upon the Esstate of Samuell Comstock: deceased, is wanting. [so it was already lost as early as 1677!] The Indenture of Daniell Comstock is among the papers. Signed Arthur ffenner and John Whipple Junr. Oct 27 1677.
Vol VIII, p. 36 27 Jan 1678 Samuel Comstock requested that the towne grant the laying out of land which remains due to him of his father's right, which he bought from John Smith, Samuel Whipple objecting to the request. The council suspended an answer until 10 Feb. The council on that date decided against Samuel Comstock.
SAMUEL COMSTOCK and ANNE ?TUCKER were married in 1654.13 ANNE ?TUCKER13,26,27,28 was born about 1630.25
The surname "Tucker" has been assigned to Anne. In the early Comstock books, she is not given a surname. I answered an online query in which the person stated a Jeremy Crites said his great, great uncle Ernest Comstock wrote a Comstock genealogy in 1939 which listed Samuel's wife as Ann Tucker. This researcher also stated that she had found a Noah Tooker/Tucker living in New London, Connecticut at approximately the right time. I did find that one Ernest Bernard Comstock of Dallas TX did write in 1930 a small book called, Family History, Comstock & Allied Families and he stated the purpose was to add several hundred names to the history of the Comstock family as published by Gen. Cyrus Ballou Comstock in 1907. Cyrus B. Comstock did edit in 1907, A Comstock Genealogy; Descendants of William Comstock of New London, Conn. who died after 1662. Ten Generations - I know Anne has no surname in this book of 1907. I was able to obtain Ernest B. Comstock's book on microfilm from the LDS, #1405178, and Anne is listed as the wife of Samuel Comstock simply as Anne _______. There is no further discussion about this line as Ernest B. Comstock descended from another son of William Comstock.
When John A. Comstock wrote his A History of the Descendants of the Comstock Family in America, in 1949, he listed Anne as Anne ?Tucker and offered no explanation. When I examined his manuscript collection, I discovered in the last folder of miscellaneous research notes a copy of the book written by Ernest B. Comstock - it's actually just a small booklet, compiled in 1939. It was autographed by the author.
Research at the NEHGS library in the manuscript collection of Samuel W. Comstock revealed he had found a court case in New Amsterdam [New York City] that he believed indicated the surname of Anne. He had sent this information on to John A. Comstock, claiming he had copies. These court records were originally in Dutch and I do not know whether or Samuel W. Comstock had a translation or had someone do it for him. There are problems with this record, but I believe that her name was certainly not "Tucker". It may be doubtful that these records involved this Anne - see Samuel's notes.
"The Town Council of Providence took action about estates of Samuel Comstock and John Smith deceased, on 9 March 1660. On 4 May, 1661, Anne Smith, of Providence, widow of John Smith, formerly wife of Samuel Comstock, deceased, sold to Roger Mowry the house and home share of her husband, Samuel Comstock. It comprised four acres in a row of houses in the north part of Providence." She was still living in February of 1667.
The Early Records of the Town of Providence:
Vol III, (Brass Clasps) p.2 contains a partial entry of what was obviously copied in Vol XV: There is an additional note: ....ne hath taken this which the widdow Anne Sm... full satisfaction for securetye, of her son john.
Vol. XV, p.85 "I Ann Smith widdow doe put in to the Townes hand of Providence all the right of my husband John Smith deceased excepting the share of meddow which was due to my husband, for the securitye of my child John witnes my hand this 27 of aprill 1661.
the marke X of An Smith
Wittness: Thomas Olney deputye William Carpenter, dupuy
When Mary Mowry, widow of Roger & Administrator of his estate sold property to
Stephen Paine of Rehoboth [senior] in New Plimouth Colony, there was a better description of the property of Samuel Comstock. Mary Mowry sold three house Lotts or home Shares, one originally belonging to Daniel Comstock, another belonged to John Smith, the third belonged to Richard Prey. The lots with housing are in"the north part of ...Towne of Providence. Bounding on the south side the home share of Lawrance Willkenson; the north with a home share formerly belonging to Edward Inman, on the East with the Common, or high way & on the west End with the high way, or Towne streete. She also sold to Stephon Paine, one puchase Right of Commoning within the limits of the Towne of Providence, reading so far west ward as the seven mile line and a 25 acres right of Commoning reaching so far West as the said seven mile, and the lands that belonged to the said two Rights of Comming on the East side the seven mile line which was not devided before my said husband Roger "Mawrey" his decease.
1 Sep 1671
Early Record of Providence, Vol. III, p.209-213
2 Sept 1671 Stephen Paine of Rehoboth of Plimouth, sold to Samuel Whipple of Rhode Island & Providence Planatation, three house lots or home shares with dwellings and out houses, in the north part of the Town of Providence. Bounded on the South with the home share of Lawrence Wilkenson, the north by Edward Inman, the East by the Common, or highway, and on the West with the high way, or Town Street. They were purchased by me of Mary Mawrey, Executrix of her deceased husband Roger Mawrey. One of the lots originally belonged to Daniel Comstock, former inhabitant, another to John Smith, inhabitant of Providence, the third did belong to Richard Prey of Providence. Vol. III, p.206-209
John Smith, the Mason, had sold his house lot to Samuel Comstock in 1654. In 1661, Anne, widow first of Samuel, then widow of John Smith, son of the John, the mason, had sold it to Roger Mowry in 1661.
SAMUEL COMSTOCK and ANNE ?TUCKER had the following children: