Jonathan Haines resided in Newbury, Mass., where by wife Sarah he had seven
children born, and in 1686 removed to Haverhill, where they had five more added.
He was born in 1646, possibly in Salem. He may have been the son of one Richard
Haines who, with a brother William, were among the earliest settlers of Salem,
at a period so early that the records of the allotments of land are very
indistinct or silent. They, among others, had quite large tracts of land which
was given them or that they purchased when their names first appear in the
records. They sold to Mr. Porter two-thirds of one hundred and eighty acres of
land, of which tract Simon Bradstreet of Andover held the other one-third.
William Haines married Sarah, daughter of Richard and Ann Ingersoll of Salem.
Wm. Haines died in 1651; his widow Sarah married Joseph Holton, who settled her
former husband's estate, by which we learn that there was an elder son, Joseph
Haines, and "two young children," one of which probably was Thomas Haines ; who
in later years and in deeds called Richard Haines his "uncle;" and Richard
Haines speaks of Thomas as his "beloved nephew," on the occasion in 1679-So,
when Richard gave his property (chiefly land) to Thomas, upon the condition that
the latter should support him the remainder of his life; the land being in
Salem, where they both resided.
Jonathan Haines' name first appears in the records as a witness to a deed, or
power of attorney made by John Knight, Sen., of Newbury, and wife Ann, who was
the widow of Richard Ingersoll, the mother-in-law of William Haines before
mentioned. Jonathan was then, 1668,22 years of age, and residing in Newbury. His
occupation was that of brickmaker. The deed referred to was the transference of
8o acres of land to John and Nathaniel Ingersoll two of the sons of Ann and
Richard, her former husband, by way of the settlement of the estate.
Richard Ingersoll, the first husband of Ann, in a will, names his children,
among others, his sons-in-law, Wm. Haines, and Richard Pettengill, who married
Joanna, and daughter Bathsheba (who afterwards married John Knight, Jr. as her
mother, widow Ann, had married John Knight, Sen.).
By his will Richard gave to his son Nathaniel a legacy of land "which was to be
to him and his children begotten of his own body; if no children, then the
legacy to go to son John and sons-in-law, Haines and Pettengill," upon
Nathaniel's death. Dea. Nathaniel Ingersoll did not die until 1719, when so much
time had elapsed that there had come to be a misunderstanding as to the true
situation of things, and a consequent resort to the courts, in which the heirs
of William Haines, Thomas particularly, appeared among the others, with which in
no way or time was Jonathan's name included, nor was Richard Haines or heirs
mentioned, who was the "uncle" of Thomas. The details of the trial it is not
necessary to state here.
In 1679 Jonathan Haines bought of Joshua Brown and Sarah, his wife, a parcel of
land in Newbury containing 6 acres more or less. Deed Witnessed by Anthony
Somerby and James Bradding. Sept. 9, 1656, Jonathan, with the consent of his
wife Sarah, sold this land, with dwelling house and outhouses thereon, for 120
pounds, and other merchandise to Hugh March of Newbury; this marks the period
when Jonathan removed to Haverhill.
There was recorded the 20 May, 1681, in the Registry of Essex Co., a
"protest" or caution from Jonathan Haines, setting forth the fact that widow
Mary Parker had promised to sell to him, Jonathan Haines, her -"house and y acre
of land for 70 pounds, to be paid in goods . . . a "certain part when Mary, her
child, shall be 15 years old . . . and 15 pounds when she shall be 20 years old,
sells : "that house and 3 acre of land that is now in Jonathan Haines, his
possession, which she sells to him," and he was to have five acres of meadow for
four years as a part of the bargain, and Jonathan did engage for security to pay
his 5 or 6 acres of land that he purchased of Joshua Brown, and did engage it,
the meadow, that Jonathan should have as much as any other will pay, and she
appointed a bill of sale to be written, and a time to seal it. But after she
said that she would go to Beverly before she would confirm it." This was
witnessed by Anthony Somerby and James Bradding. Peter Hale swore that he heard
Mary Parker say that she had sold the house and land to Jonathan Haines that he
now liveth in, for 7o pounds. John Smith can testify to what is above written.
This was recorded to save his interest 20 May, 1681.
Thomas Browne, a weaver, came to Newbury in 1635, from Malford, Wilts Co.,
England, with wife Mary. They had born to them in 1635, in Newbury, a daughter,
Mary, who was the first English child born in Newbury. Her brother Isaac married
Rebecca Bayly, oldest daughter and child of John Bayly, of Salisbury and
Newbury. Francis Browne, another brother, married Mary Johnson, of Newbury, and
of their seven children, the second, Mary, born in 1657, married Nathan Parker,
Jun. The fourth child being John Browne, born May 13, 1665, who married Ruth
Huse. Coffin, in his history of Newbury, says: "Oct. 7, 1695, on the afternoon
of this day, five Indians attacked and plundered the house of John Browne, who
lived on the westerly side of Turkey Hill, and captured nine persons ; one only
of the family escaped to tell the tale." All these were recaptured except one
boy, who was killed ; but they were all deliberately wounded by the Indians upon
parting with them. Among these captives was Mary Parker, the daughter of
"Widow Parker"; she was now about 18 years of age; she was born July 16, 1678,
and was but two or-three years old at the time of the proposed sale by her
mother to Jon. Haines. This daughter, Mary Parker, died about four months after,
the result of her wounds. In the settlement of the estate of her husband Parker,
deceased, the widow then residing, it is thought, at Andover, mentions in her
account the expense of five journeys to visit her daughter while ill, and the
expense of constant attendance of a nurse for 13 weeks, and the funeral
expenses. It is to be noted that she had not sold her house and land, as the
expense of its maintenance was included in her account. She had in the meantime
married one Mr. Elliot, probably of Beverly. When Widow Mary Parker intended to
sell her house to Jonathan Haines, it was found that the title to her land was
not quite clear, whereupon the same Anthony Somerby and James Bradding,
witnessed that Alice Long, wife of Robert Long, confirmed what before her
husband had sold to Nathan Parker. Nathan Parker while living was a carpenter,
and had built a house for John Knight, Jun., who had married Bathsheba
Ingersoll. At this time there was due to Parker, deceased, 25 pounds, whereupon
Bathsheba, for her husband's estate, sold to Widow Mary a piece of land in
If these selections from the records do not show the parentage of Jonathan
Haines, they show his place in the history of Newbury to the time when he
removed to Haverhill.
Jonathan Haines born 1646, married January 1, 1674, Mary Moulton, who died in a
few months, and he married 2d, Dec. 30, 1674, Sarah Moulton, daughter of William
of Hampton, born in Hampton 17 Dec., 1656.
Their children were:
- MARY, b. Nov. 14, 1675.
- MARY, b. Oct. 2, 1677.
- HANNAH, b. (probably) about 1678-9, who m. Dec. 16, 1697, John3
Heath (Josiah2, John1).
- THOMAS, b. May 14, 1680, m. in Haverhill, Dec. 22, 1703, Hannah Harriman.
He always lived, and died in Haverhill.
- MARGARET, b. 1683, d. Feb. 10, 1753, in Windham, Conn., m. Nov. 26, 1706,
Thomas3 Kingsbury (Samuel2, Henry1)
- JONATHAN, b. Sept. 3, 1684, was taken a prisoner by the Indians to Canada,
and there remained.
- SARAH, b. , m. Jan. 29, 1702-3 Thomas Kingsbury (Henry1) as his
2d wife. Thomas Kingsbury d., and widow Sarah m. 2d, William Corbet of
- MARY, b. March 3, 1686-7; their first child in Haverhill. She m.
Preston (Samuel2, Roger1).
- JOSEPH, b. Aug. 4, 1689, was taken by the Indians to Canada with his
brother Jonathan, and there remained.
- RUTH, b. Feb. 10, 1691-2, m. 1711, John3 Corliss (John2,
George1), b. March 4, 1686.
- ABIGAIL, bapt. March 10, 1694, m. Jacob Warner.
- ELIZABETH, b. March 22, 1696-7, m. Isaac Spaulding.
We have no particular account of Jonathan Haines and children for the next
ten years after his departure from Newbury, 1686. It is a matter well known in
the history of Haverhill and vicinity, that Aug. 15, 1696, while Jonathan
Haines, the father, and four of his children, Thomas, aged 16, Jonathan, 12,
Mary, 10, Joseph, 9, were in a field near Bradley's Mills, the children picking
beans, and the father in a field near by reaping, were all captured by a party
of Indians, who immediately started with their captives for Penacook (Concord,
N. H.), where they divided their prisoners, and the two parties separated; one
party with the father and Thomas, went on their way to their home in Maine, from
which place the captives soon found an opportunity to escape. When, after
traveling two or three days, with great fatigue, and hunger, and discouragement,
they found themselves in the vicinity of Saco, Maine, attracted and cheered by
the familiar sounds of a distant sawmill. The other party, with the three other
children, Mary, Jonathan and Joseph, went to Canada, where they were sold to the
French. Mary was redeemed the following winter,. it is said, with 100 pounds of
tobacco. This is briefly stated, but history says nothing about the necessary
negotiations or intermediate participants required to bring the exchange about.
The boys remained in Canada so long that they made new friendships, became
contented, married, and became Canadian farmers.
There are many traditional sayings attached to the known facts, but the most of
them are not worth repeating. A Mr. Haines, a descendant from Thomas, the son
here mentioned, was enthusiastic in a search he made, in recent years, through
the records, and traditions prevailing, and seemed to believe many of them. It
is probable that he had the belief, from a deposition, that Jonathan the father
was much older than he really was, and as some of the stories speaking of him as
an old man, confirmed him in his belief; and also that there was a third Mary,
he did not seem to know. The Mary who was taken prisoner was to years old. The
first two children, Mary's, both dying, left the Mary of 1656 with the name.
According to a deposition before the court in Salem, Jonathan and his wife Sarah
(Moulton) Haines, both gave their ages, Sarah's age agreeing with the town
record of birth, and Jonathan's age given makes him to have been born in x646;
the last is repeated by still another deposition.
Two years later than this capture of himself and children, when he and Samuel
Ladd were killed, he was 52 and Ladd 49 years of age. The main details of this
event are: On Feb. 22, 1698, Samuel Ladd, with his son Daniel (aged 22), and
Jonathan Haines, with his son Thomas (aged 18), who lived in the west part of
the town, started that morning with a yoke of oxen and one horse each to bring
some hay that had been cut and stacked the preceding summer in their meadow at
the extreme western part of the town. On the way home they suddenly found
themselves between two files of Indians concealed in the bushes on each side of
the path. Seeing that it was impossible to escape, they asked for quarter, but
not before young Ladd had cut one of the horses loose, which escaped to the town
and was the means of giving a general alarm. What soon followed was that Ladd
and Haines (the fathers) were killed by blows on their heads by the Indians. The
Indians carried the boys prisoners to Pennacook. Their subsequent movements are
not stated, but tradition says it was some years before Daniel Ladd could escape
and return home. He (married Nov., 1701) "was much disfigured by slashing of his
face and the insertion of gunpowder in the wounds; as a punishment for
attempting to escape soon after capture." It is probable that Thomas Haines soon
escaped or his freedom by some means bought.
Mary Haines at the time of the death of her father was 12 years of age, and had
not been much more than a year at home when her brother Thomas had a new share
of captivity. Eight years after these events, at the age of 20, Mary married
John Presson of Andover, when they departed for the peaceful solitudes of the
new town of Killingly, Conn., and were at last free from the attacks of the
Indians from the north in the valley of the Merrimac River.
There was recorded in the Registry of Essex Co., Sept. 17, 1731, the following
deed: I, Samuel Ingersoll of Salem, in the County of Essex, cooper, sell to
Thomas Haines of Haverhill, Mass., and to Jonathan Haines and Joseph Haines now
at Canada, William Corbett and Sarah his wife of Lebanon, Conn, John Heath of
Norwich, Conn., and Hannah his wife, Thomas Kingsbury of Windham and Margaret
his wife, John Preston of Windham and Mary his wife, John Corliss of Haverhill
and Ruth his wife, and the heirs of Jacob Warren and Abigail his wife, since
deceased, and to Isaac Spaulding and Elizabeth his wife, of Plainfield, all
brothers and sisters of the said Thomas, and tenants in common, all my right,
title and interest in the one-sixth part of several tracts of land situated in
Salem, etc. Signed SAMUEL INGERSOLL.
July 6, 1733, Thomas Haines of Haverhill for self and as attorney for Jonathan
and Joseph Haines, and the others mentioned above, with Isaac Spaulding and his
wife omitted, sells the samel and to Richard Ingersoll of Salem- Signed THOMAS
Why this transfer of land to and fro does not appear; but it strengthens the
supposition of some relationship between Jonathan, the father, and those at
Salem, possibly with Richard Haines; something which was the foundation of a
continued acquaintance with his children.
These deeds serve to show where the brothers and sisters of Mary Preston were at
this time, 1731, residing. Of the seven sons of Samuel Ladd, who was killed when
Jonathan Haines was, three of them settled in Connecticut, so of a large portion
of the Kingsburys.
Thomas1 Haines, Jonathan's oldest son, married Hannah Harriman. Of
his eight children, the fifth, Jonathan, born Oct. 25, 1712, married Elizabeth
Kingsbury, "and about 1750 removed to Norwich, Conn., and about 1771 to
Bennington, Vt. Of his children or grandchildren, one settled in Middletown,
Vt., of which Dr. Bachus Haines of Rutland, Vt. was a descendant."- Guy C.