My family tree

Richard Stout was born in abt 1615 in Burton Joyce, Nottinghamshire, England, son of John Stout and Elizabeth Bee. He l eft home, possibly because his father was unhappy about a relationship he had with a woman below his standing, and join ed the British Navy, where he served for seven years. At New Amsterdam he left his ship and became a Netherlands subjec t. He was said to have been a man of "parts," but of little formal education. (http://longislandgenealogy.com/stout/sur names.htm) "Among the first and most distinquished settlers of Hopewell." RICHARD STOUT was probably born about 1615, the reputed son of JOHN STOUT and his wife ELIZABETH KEE, who were marrie d in Burton Joyce Parish, Nottinghamshire, England on November 15, 1609. The early details of Richard Stout’s life ar e completely unknown,although a tradition related by descendant Nathan Stout (1748-1826) in his 1823 manuscript famil y history states that Richard Stout left his home in Nottinghamshire after his father's disapproval of a youthful roman ce, and subsequently joined the crew ofa British "ship of war" for seven years. Richard Stout was among the English set tlers who were employed as soldiers by Director-General Willem Kieft (1597-1647) during the Indian uprising of February , 1643, serving with Robert Pennoyer and others. Stouthad established himself as a member of Lady Deborah Moody’s Engli sh colony at Gravesend, Long Island, New York prior to October 13, 1643, as the earliest recorded reference to him reve als that he was a deponent appearing before Cornelius Van Tienhoven, secretary of New Netherland, concerning the steali ng of some pumpkins and hogs near Coney Island by members of the crew of the Sevenster and another privateer called L a Garce (New York Historical Manuscripts: Dutch, Volume II, 1642-1647, pp. 165-166). Richard Stout was among the 39 pat entees who were named in a patent issued to the settlers of Gravesend on December 19, 1645. The following February 20 , 1646, he received Lot Number 16 in the first allotments of house lots and farms at Gravesend. Stout evidently grew to bacco on his new land, as the Gravesend Town book contains an entry dated October 26, 1649 in which he sold John Thoma s his crop of tobacco for 210 guilders.           It is not known precisely when Richard Stout married his wife, the famed PENELOPE VAN PRINCES (ca. 1622/26–ca . 1732/36), although records suggest that it may have been later than the 1644 date traditionally assigned by most rese archers.The arrival of Penelope Van Princes in America is one of the great epic stories in the early history of New Jer sey, and has been related innumerable times in many published works. It is alleged that Penelope was born in Amsterdam , Holland of English parentage, andhad married a Dutch gentleman before her immigration to New Amsterdam. The earlies t account of her tragic and inspirational story is related in Samuel Smith’s The History of The Colony of Nova-Caesaria , or New Jersey publishedin 1765 (pp. 65-67): “Case of a stranger, remarkably saved among the Indians” - While New-York was in possession of the Dutch, about the tim e of the Indian war in New-England, a Dutch ship coming from Amsterdam, was stranded on Sandy Hook, but the passenger s got on shore; among them was a young Dutchman who had been sick most of the voyage; he was taken so bad after landing , that he could not travel; and the other passengers being afraid of the Indians, would not stay till he recovered, bu t made what haste they could to New-Amsterdam; his wife however would not leave him, the rest promised to send help a s soon as they arrived: They had not been long gone, before a company of Indians coming down to the water side, discove red them on the beach, and hastening to the spot, soon killed the man, and cut and mangled the woman in such a manner t hat they left her for dead. She had strength enough to crawl up to some old logs not far distant, and getting into a ho llow one, lived mostly in it for several days, subsisting in part by eating the excrescences that grew from it; the Ind ians had left some fire on the shore; which she kept together for warmth: having remained in this manner for some time , an old Indian and a young one coming down tothe beach found her; they were soon in high words, which she afterwards u nderstood was a dispute; the former being for keeping her alive, the other for dispatching: After they had debated th e point a while, the first hastily took her up, and tossing her upon his shoulder, carried her to a place nearMiddletow n now stands, where he dressed her wounds and soon cured her: After some time the Dutch at New-Amsterdam hearing of a w hite woman among the Indians, concluded who it must be, and some of them came to her relief; the old man her preserver , gave her the choice either to go or stay; she chose the first: A while after marrying to one Stout, they lived togeth er at Middletown among other Dutch inhabitants; the old Indian who saved her life, used frequently to visit her; at on e of his visits she observed him to be more pensive than common, and sitting down he gave three heavy sighs; after th e last she thought herself at liberty to ask him what was the matter? He told herhe had something to tell her in friend ship, tho’ at the risk of his own life, whichwas, that the Indians were that night to kill all the whites, and advise d her to go off to New Amsterdam; she asked him how she could get off? he told her he hadprovided a canoe at a place wh ich he named: Being gone from her, she sent her husband out ofthe field, and discovered the matter to him, who not beli eving it, she told him the old man never deceived her, and that she with her children would go;accordingly going to th e place appointed, they found the canoe and paddled off. When they were gone, the husband began to consider the thing , and sending for five or six of his neighbors, they set upon their guard: About midnight they heard thedismal war-hoop ; presently came up a company of Indians; they first expostulated, and then told them, if they persisted in their blood y design, they would sell their lives very dear: Their arguments prevailed, the Indians desisted, and entered into a le ague of peace, which was kept without violation. From this woman, thus remarkably saved, with her scars visible, throug h a long life, is descended a numerous posterity of the name of Stout, now inhabiting New-Jersey: At that time there we re supposed to be about fifty families of white people, and five hundred Indians inhabiting those parts. View of Sandy Hook, the location of Penelope Van Prince's shipwreck Sandy Hook, Monmouth County, New Jersey Two other early versions exist of Penelope Stout’s story of arrival in America. Baptist minister and historian Morgan E dwards' 1792 publication Materials towards a History of the Baptists in Jersey contains an article entitled “History o f the Stouts.” Thesource of the material for Edward’s article is uncertain, although it is thought to have been transmi tted to Edwards from Reverend Oliver Hart of Hopewell Baptist Church. The article was subsequently published, in a slig htly variant form, in David Benedict’s History of the Baptist Denomination in America (1813, Volume 1, pp. 573-574): History of the Stouts - “The family of the Stouts are so remarkable, for their number, origin, and character, in both c hurch and state, that their history deserves to be conspicuously recorded; and no place can be so proper as that of Hop ewell, where thebulk of the family resides. We have already seen that Jonathan Stout and family were the seed of the Ho pewell church, and the beginning of Hopewell settlement; and that of the 15 which constituted the church, nine were Sto uts. The churchwas constituted atthe house of a Stout, and the meetings were held chiefly at the dwellings of the Stout s for 41 years, viz. from the beginning of the settlement to the building of the meeting-house, before described. Mr. H art was of opinion (in 1790,) “that from first tolast, half the members have been and were of that name; for, in lookin g over the church book, (saith he) I find that near two hundred of the name have been added; besides about as many mor e of the blood of the Stouts,who had lost the name by marriages. The present (1790) two deacons and four elders, are St outs; the late Zebulon and David Stout were two of its main pillars; the last living to see his offspring multiplied in to an hundred and seventeen souls.”The origin of this Baptist family is no less remarkable; for they all sprang from on e woman, and she as good as dead; her history is in the mouths of most of her posterity, and is told as follows: “She w as born at Amsterdam, about the year 1602;her father’s name was Vanprincis; she and her first husband, (whose name is n ot known) sailed for New-York, (then New-Amsterdam) about the year 1620; the vessel was stranded at Sandy Hook; the cre w got ashore, and marched towards the said New-York; but could not march with them; therefore, he and his wife tarrie d in the woods; they had not been long in the place, before the Indians killed them both, (as they thought) and strippe d them to the skin; however, Penelope came to, though her skull was fractured, and her left shoulder so hacked, that sh e could never usethat arm like the other; she was also cut across the abdomen, so that her bowels appeared; these she k ept in with her hand; she continued in this situation for seven days, taking shelter in a hollow tree, and eating the e xcrescence of it: the seventh dayshe saw a deer passing by with arrows sticking in it, and soon after two Indians appea red, whom she was glad to see, in hope they would put her out of her misery; accordingly, one made towards her to knoc k her on the head; but the other, who was an elderly man, prevented him; and throwing his matchcoat about her, carrie d her to his wigwam, and cured her of her wounds and bruises; after that he took herto New York, and made a present o f her to her countrymen, viz. an Indian present, expecting ten times the value in return. – It was in New-York, that on e Richard Stout married her: he was a native of England, and of a good family; she was not inher 22d year, and he in hi s 40th. She bore him seven sons and three daughters, viz. Jonathan, (founder of Hopewell) John, Richard, James, Peter , David, Benjamin, Mary, Sarah, and Alice; the daughters married into the families of the Bounds, Pikes, Throckmortons , and Skeltons, and so lost the name of Stout; the sons married into the families of Bullen, Crawford, Ashton, Traux, & c. and had many children. The mother lived to be the age of 110, and saw her offspring multiplied into 502 in about 8 8 years." The third version of the story was written down in an 1823 manuscript family history of the Stouts prepared by Nathan S tout (1748-1826) of Amwell, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, a great-great grandson of Richard and Penelope Stout. It is n ot certain how much Stout was influenced by the earlier published accounts of Smith and Edwards, but there can be no do ubt that he lived contemporaneously with many elder family members who undoubtedly knew the story from oral tradition: Richard Stout, the first of the name in America was born in Nottinghamshire, in Old England, and his father’s name wa s John. The said Richard, when quite young paid his addresses to a young woman that his father thought below his rank , upon whichaccount some unpleasant conversation happened between the father and the son, on account of which, the sai d Richard left his father’s house; and in a few days engaged on board a ship of war, where he served about seven years , after which time hegot a discharge atNew Amsterdam, now called New York, in America. About the same time a ship fro m Amsterdam, in Holland, on her way to the said New Amsterdam, was driven on the shore that is now called Middletown, i n Monmouth County, in the State of New Jersey, which shipwas loaded with passengers, who with much difficulty got on sh ore. But the Indians not long after fell upon them and butchered and killed the whole crew, as they thought, but soon a fter the Indians were gone, a certain Penelope Van Princes, whose husbandthe Indians had killed, found herself possesse d of strength enough to creep to a hollow tree, where she remained some days. An Indian happening to come that way, who se dog coming to the tree, occasioned him to examine the inside of the tree, where he found the said Penelope in a forl orn, distressed condition. She was bruised very severely about the head, and her bowels protruded from a cut across he r abdomen; she kept them in with her hand. She had been in this fearful condition seven days when the Indianfound her . In his compassion he took her out of the tree and carried her to his wigwam where he treated her kindly and healed he r wounds, and in a short time conveyed her in his canoe to New Amsterdam, where he sold her to the Dutch, who then owne d thatcity, now called New York. The man and woman from whom the whole race of Stouts descended, got into the city of N ew Amsterdam, where they became acquainted with each other and weremarried. And, not withstanding, it may be thought b y some, that they conducted themselves with more fortitude than prudence, they immediately crossed the bay and settle d in the above said Middletown, where the said Penelope had lost her first husband by the Indians and had been so sever ely wounded herself. There was at that timebut six white families in the settlement, including their own, (which was i n the year 1648), where they continued until they became rich in prosperity and richin children. They had together seve n sons and three daughters, viz: John, Richard, Jonathan, Peter, James, Benjamin, David. The daughters were Deliveranc e [Alice], Sarah, Penelope [Mary]. All of which sons and daughters lived to raise large families. The story of Penelope also appears in varying form in both John W. Barber's 1868 work Historical Collections of the Sta te of New Jersey (pp. 259-260) and John O. Raum's 1877 History of New Jersey (Volume 1, pp. 76-78).           It is not known on what unfortunate vessel Penelope Van Princes actually arrived, but recent findings have ca used some researchers to believe that her ship of arrival was the yacht Kath. Records shows the Kath under Hans Jelis z sailed from Amsterdam for New Amsterdam, where it arrived before June 6, 1647. The yacht Kath was then ordered, alon g with the Liefde, to cruise against the Spaniards. By February 19, 1647/48, both ships were reported at Curaçao, wher e they remained dueto damage from storms and the illness of crew. The following July 2, 1648, it was reported that th e Kath under Hans Wyer had captured a Spanish bark called the Nostra Senora Rosario below Margarita Island and brough t the ship north to Manhattan.That same day in a suit before the Council at New Amsterdam, Hendrick Van Dyck sought rec overy of some pieces of eight and pearls taken from the Spanish ship by the crew of the Kath. By November 9, 1648, th e ship under Jeuryaen Andriessen had been reported as stranded on Sandy Hook,New Jersey, at which time the captain an d crew requested final settlement of their wages before the Council at New Amsterdam. Since the ship became stranded o n Sandy Hook after it’s return from Curaçao rather than Amsterdam, it is questionable whether this vessel could be th e same one referred to in the accounts of Penelope Stout’s arrival.           The earliest definitive record that exists concerning Penelope Van Princes is found in the Gravesend Town Boo k in an entry dated September 12, 1648 concerning a suit for slander between Ambrose London and the wife of Thomas Appl egate. Depositionwas given by Applegate’s wife that Penelope Prince had stated in her presence that Ambrose London’s wi fe had milked Applegate’s cow. Rodger Scott also deposed that he had heard the same. Thomas Greedye further tesitifed t hat Penelope Prince had stated while at his home that she and Thomas Applegate’s daughter would be summoned as witnesse s against Ambrose London’s wife. Upon questioning, Penelope Prince acknowledged her error in speaking and “gave satisfa ction” on both sides. The appearance of Penelope’ssurname as Prince in this record has caused many researchers to quest ion the traditional belief that her surname was Van Princes. It might indeed suggest an attempt to give a Dutch appeara nce to her otherwise English surname in the traditional accounts.The fact that she was not at this time referred to b y her married name of Stout may also imply that her marriage to Richard Stout did not take place until after this even t in 1648.           There is considerable historical debate over when Richard Stout and his wife first settled in Monmouth County , New Jersey. Historian William S. Hornor in his 1932 history This Old Monmouth of Ours (pp. 146-147) insisted that Ric hard andhis wifeparticipated in a small party of English settlers who sought to establish a new settlement near the sit e of present day Middletown, New Jersey in 1648, and that the small colony existed for several years until an Indian up rising on September 15, 1655. Likewise, the 1823 account written by Nathan Stout and the writings of descendant Theres e (Walling) Seabrook (1821-1899) advance the notion of an earlier settlement. Historian John Edwin Stillwell in his tre atment of the Stout family in Volume Four of Historical and Genealogical Miscellany, Early Settlers of New Jersey and t heir Descendants (1916, p. 301) casts some doubt upon this belief. He writes: That this permanent settlement occurred before 1664, I doubt, though the Stout manuscript, and Mrs. Seabrook, probabl y from the same source, say explicitly, that it was in the year 1648, and that Stout was associated with five additiona l settlers, among whom Mrs. Seabrook named Bowne, Lawrence, Grover and Whitlock. To this earlier settlement, Edwards ma kes no allusion, nor can it be said that Smith does, but to the contrary, he fixes the date of Stout’s settlement pract ically about the time of 1665, or alittle later, for he mentions the event, as does Edwards, of an uprising when Penelo pe’s oldtime Indian friend saved her by a timely warning, which Smith says occurred, when there “were supposed to be ab out fifty familes of white people, and five hundredIndians inhabiting these parts.” Surely this must related to a late r date than 1648, for so many white families could only have been assembled in this district after the Monmouth Paten t had been issued by Governor Nichols; further, a study of the movements of the Stouts, Bownes, Lawrences, Grovers, an d Whitlocks does not encourage the belief that they were permanently settled on the Monmouth Tract much before 1665. A t times members of these families may have been temporarily camped out in this district for hunting or prospecting, an d it may have been on one of these occasions that Penelope Stout received the warning from her Indian friend of the thr eatened uprising, and the need of her immediate removal, and indeed, this event, given by Smith, Edwards, and the Stou t manuscript, could only have occurred during such a temporary occupation, for in 1665, or later, Penelope’s Indian sav iour would have been more than twenty-two years older than he was in 1643, the date of Penelope’s supposed arrival, whe n he was already an old man. Add these years to this old man’s age and he would have been pretty patriarchal. Again, Sm ith’s account says Penelope took her children with her, which would probably refer to a late, rather than to an early e vent, as in 1665, her family was largely grown, yet some were young, being born after 1654. Land records show that Richard Stout acquired Lot Number 26 in Gravesend from Edward Griffin on April 5, 1661, witnesse d by John Tilton and John Tilton, Jr. On October 8, 1663, Richard Stout brought a suit against Nathaniel Britton on cha rges ofslander, alleging that Britton had accused him of selling wine to the Indians. Britton was ordered to pay cour t charges. With the advent of his removal to the Monmouth patent, Richard Stout began to dispose of his lands at Graves end. On March 21, 1666, Stout sold Thomas Delaval of New York lots 5 and 26 at Gravesend, and lot 16 containing four ac res of meadow fields. James Hubbard and James Grover witnessed the deed. He disposed of another tract on March 30, 1667 , conveying seven acresof land to James Bowne, witnessed by Thomas Applegate and James Hulmes (Gravesend Town Records , Deeds, Leases, etc., 1655-1670 and Court Minutes, 1662-1699).           With the surrender of the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam to the English on September 8, 1664, a new regime bas ed on the English system of law was established. Richard Stout was one of twelve men from Gravesend to whom the Monmout h Patentwas granted by Deputy-Governor Richard Nicolls (1624-1672) of New York on April 8, 1665 upon the condition tha t they settle 100 families on the tract within a space of three years. The Monmouth patent land consisted of land at Na vesink previously purchased by James Hubbard, John Bowne, John Tilton, Jr., Richard Stout, William Goulding, and Samue l Spicer from Papomora, Chief of the Navesink Indians, and his brother Mishacoing on March 25, 1664 (25th 1st month 166 4). The land was purchased for a consideration of 118fathoms seaswamp (wampum), 68 fathoms of which were to be white an d 50 black seaswamp, 5 coats, 1 gun, 1 clout capp, 1 shirt, 12 pounds. tobacco and 1 tanker wine. Additionally, 82 fath oms of seaswamp were to be paidwithin twelve months. The conveyance was witnessed by Indians named Rickhoran, Checockra n, Chyre, Serand, and Mingwash (Secretary of State, Albany, NY, Liber 3, p. 1). A second purchase was made from the Ind ians on April 7, 1665. On that date, John Tilton, Sr., Samuel Spicer, William Goulding, Richard Gibbons, James Grover , and Richard Stout purchased land from Indians named Taplawappammund, Mattamahickanick, Yawpochammund, Kackenham, Matt anoh, Norchon, and Qurrmeck. The third and finalpurchase occurred on June 5, 1665, when James Grover, John Bowne, Richa rd Stout, John Tilton, Richard Gibbons, William Goulding, Samual Spicer and "the rest of the Company” were deeded lan d from Indians named Manavendo, Emmerdesolsee, Poppomera,Checawsen, Shanhemun, Cramanscum, Winegermeen and Macca (Salte r, Edwin, A History of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, 1890, pp. 33-34).           Of the twelve patentees, only four men actually settled on the Monmouth patent land. They were Richard Stout , James Grover, John Bowne, and Richard Gibbons. Another land purchaser, James Hubbard, came in later years. The paten t itself was essentially void from its inception, as Nicoll’s authority to convey the land was superseded by James, Duk e of York’s June 24, 1664 grant of the colony of New Jersey to two Lords Proprietors, Sir George Carteret (ca. 1610-168 0) and John Berkeley, 1st Baron Berkeley of Stratton (1602-1678). On February 10, 1664/65, Carteret and Berkeley drafte d “The Concessions and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of Nova Caesarea, or New Jersey, to and wit h all and every of the Adventurers and all such as shall settle or plant there." Their “Concessions and Agreement” docu ment embodied the principles of popular government and provided the inhabitants of the new colony with representation i n a General Assembly, property rights, laws of inheritance, and religious freedom.           The influx of settlers to the Monmouth Patent land was substantial during the first five years, and they soo n organized themselves into settlements at Portland Point, Shrewsbury, and Middletown. As one of the original patentees , RichardStout frequently served in the joint Assembly for these towns between 1669-1671 and was one of six men appoint ed to answer to the Governor in behalf of the towns. Since he frequently served as overseer in town affairs, he was als o a member of Constable’s Court forMiddletown. As shown in the First Town Book of Middletown, the first division of th e town lots at Middletown occurred on December 30, 1667. Richard Stout drew Lot Number 6 and his son John Stout was rec ipient of Lot Number 19.The following day on December 31, 1667, Richard Stout and James Ashton were appointed to assis t James Grover in the laying out of lots in “the Poplar and the Mountainy fields,” of which Stout received Lot Number 1 2 and his son John was allottedLot Number 5. Shortly thereafter on January 4, 1668, Richard Stout recorded his cattle m ark, which consisted of “cropt one the right ear and a slitt in the middle of the crapp.” The following year on June 15 , 1669, Richard Stout was selected along with James Grover and Jonathan Holmes to oversee a second division of meadow l and, brought about by a judgment concerning defective lots in the first division of the land.           Under the terms of the “Concessions and Agreement of the Lords Proprietors,” Richard Stout declared his right s for land due to him and his family in 1675 (East Jersey Deeds, Liber 3, Reversed Side, p. 1): 1675. Here begins the Rights of Lands due according to Concessions: Richard Stout, of Middletown, brings for his right s for himself, his wife, his two sons, John and Richard, 120 acres each, 480 acres. Item. - for his sons and daughter s yt are come voygesince the year 1667, viz.: James, Peter, Mary, Alice and Sarah, each 60 acres - 300 acres. Total, 78 0 acres. John Stout, of Middletown, for himself and wife, 240 acres. Richard Stout, in his owne right, Shrewsbury, 12 0 acres. James Stoutin his owne right,60 acres. Peter Stout in his owne right, 60 acres. Sarah Stout in her owne right , 60 acres. James Bound (Bowne), in right of himself and wife, Mary Stout, 240 acres. John Throckmorton, in right of hi mself and wife, Alice Stout, 240 acres The total acreage of land claimed by Stout and his family members in 1675 was 1800 acres. Stout’s claim offers insigh t into the relative ages of his children. His sons John and Richard and daughters Mary and Alice were married and proba bly adultsnear age21 or older, and were thus likely born before or around 1654. Sons James and Peter and daughter Sara h were evidently over the age of 14 but not necessarily age 21, and thus were likely born between 1654 and 1661. As son s Jonathan, Benjamin, and David werenot mentioned in the claim, they must have been under the age of 14, and therefor e born after 1661.           Richard Stout patented two tracts of land in present day Monmouth County on June 28, 1676. The first tract co nsisted of 430 acres at the head of Romanes [Ramanessin] Brook and was called Tanganawamesse. The second tract containe d 30 acres of meadow, and was bounded on the west by Richard Gibbons, on the north by Navesink Bay, on the south by Ric hard Hartshorne, and on the east by an undivided meadow (East Jersey Deeds, Liber 1, 1650-1678, p. 151). The followin g year on June 4,1677, he obtained another patent for 285 acres of land in six parcels (East Jersey Deeds, Liber 1, 165 0-1678, p. 168). On February 15, 1679/80, Richard Stout and his wife Penelope of Middletown sold Thomas Snawsell, Sr. o f the same, for £ 66.5.3, a tract containing 16 acresof land with a dwelling house, barn, and orchard bounded on the No rth by a highway, west by John Smith, and East by a house lot formerly the property of Richard Gibbons. They also conve yed to him nine acres of uplandin a “Poplar Field” adjoining StephenArnold, William Layton, and Edward Smith. In additi on, Snawsell received nine acres of meadow adjoining William Cheeseman and John Stout, and six acres of meadow on Wayca ke Creek adjoining Edward Smith and Anthony Page. John Brown, Thomas Lawrence, and attorney Richard Gardiner witnesse d the deed, which was recorded October 7, 1684 (Monmouth County, NJ Deed Book B, p. 6).           On December 24, 1685, Richard Stout served as a witness to the will of Edward Smith of Middletown (Proven Apr il 1, 1686; East Jersey Deeds, Liber A, 1676-1688, p. 304). The following year, he received an abatement of £ 1.4.0 o n 460 acres of landand crops such as wheat and corn in his Quit Rent assessment dated October 15, 1686, by reason tha t “the man is very old.” Perhaps because he was approaching more advanced years, Richard Stout proceeded to dispose o f various tracts of land to his sons. On January 4, 1687-8, Richard Stout, Sr. of Middletown conveyed to his son Jonath an Stout part of his June 4, 1677 patent for 285 acres. The land was bordered on the south by John Bowne, on the East b y Hop River, on the West by abarren hill, and on the North by a division line. He also conveyed his son 5 acres of mead ow at Conesconk [Conaskonck Point near Union Beach, NJ] to be taken from the east side of his 30 acres lot (East Jerse y Deeds, Liber D, 1672-1694, p. 68).On June 20, 1690, Stout deeded his sonDavid Stout a lot at Romanis [Ramanessin Broo k] on Hop River, bounded on the Southwest by the river, on the southeast by his own land, and on the Northeast and Nort hwest by Bowne’s land. David Stout also received 6 2/3 acres at Conesconk [Conaskonck Point] adjoining James Stout (Eas t Jersey Deeds, Liber D, 1672-1694, p. 386). Nine days later on June 29, 1690, Stout executed two more deeds to his son s Peter and James. His conveyance to son Peter contained a lot on Romains [Ramanessin Brook] on Hop River,bounded on th e Northeast by John Wilson, on the Southeast by a small run, on the Southwest by the Hop River, and on the Northwest b y the grantor. Peter also received 6 2/3 acres of meadow at Conesconck [Conaskonck Point] adjoining his brother David S tout(East Jersey Deeds, Liber D, 1672-1694, p. 253). James Stout received from his father a lot at Romanis [Ramanessi n Brook] on Hop River, bounded on the northeast by Bowne, on the southeast by the Hop River, on the Southwest by Jonath an Stout, and on the Northwest by unappropriated land. He also was conveyed 5 acres at Conesconk [Conaskonck Point] adj oining David Stout (East Jersey Deeds, Liber F, 1680-1698, p. 651). On August 30, 1690, son Benjamin Stout likewise rec eived from his parents Richard and Penelope Stout a lot at Romanis [Ramanessin Brook] on Hop River, bordered on the Sou thwest by the river, on the Northwest by David Stout, on the Northeast by John Wilson, and on the Southeast by Peter St out. Also conveyed was 6 2/3 acres of meadow at Conesconk[Conaskonck Point] adjoining Peter Stout (East Jersey Deeds, L iber D, 1672-1694, p. 385; also, Liber E, 1672-1698, p. 64).           Richard Stout of Middletown, New Jersey devised his will on June 9, 1703, leaving bequests to his loving wife , as well as sons John, Richard, James, Jonathan, David, and Benjamin. Also mentioned in the will was daughter-in-law M ary Stout, her son John, and kinswoman Mary Stout, the daughter of Peter Stout. Sons John and Jonathan Stout were appoi nted executors to the will, which was proven on October 23, 1705 at Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Richard Hartshorne, John W eekham, and Jeter Vandevandeter served as witnesses to the will (New Jersey Wills, Liber 1, 1705-1715, p. 120; Unrecord ed Original New Jersey Wills, Volume 11, p. 1). An Inventory of the estate of Richard Stout was prepared on October 6 , 1705 by Obadiah Bowne and James Hubbard (UnrecordedOriginal New Jersey Wills, Volume 11, p. 319). The Stout-Hendrickson House, alleged residence of David Stout and his mother Penelope (Van Princes) Stout Formerly located at 78 Crawford Corners-Everett Road, Holmdel, New Jersey [now town down] A 1964 Historical Marker dedicated to Penelope Stout by the State of New Jersey Crawford Corners-Everett Road, Holmdel, New Jersey           Penelope Stout continued to live for many years after her husband’s death. According to Morgan Edward’s accou nt, she lived to the age of 110 years and had 502 descendants at the time of her death, which traditionally is though t to haveoccurred about 1732. It is believed that in her later years following her husband’s death, she resided with he r son David Stout in a house which was known as the Stout-Hendrickson House near Holmdel, Monmouth County, New Jersey . The house was located on the north side of Crawford Corners-Everett Road a very short distance east of the intersecti on with Roberts Road. The home was constructed in three sections. The middle section of the house was the oldest, and w as thought to date from perhaps as early as the 1690s.This section, according to tradition, comprised the home of Davi d Stout. The larger adjoining two-story section of the Stout-Hendrickson house dated from the Revolutionary War perio d or later and was probably built byDenis Hendrickson. The third section of the home was a slanted roof kitchen, whic h was probably added at a later date. Since it is known that David Stout moved to Amwell, Hunterdon County, New Jerse y by the early 1720s, it is not certain whetherthe tradition of Penelope’s residence in this house is accurate or not . Family tradition also alleges that Penelope Stout was buried in close proximity to the house, although there is no su rviving identifiable grave for her in the area. It is quite likely that both she and Richard Stout were buried somewher e on the grounds of the nearby campus of Lucent Technologies on Crawford Corners-Everett Road. A New Jersey State Highw ay Marker was erected in 1964 to Penelope Stout and once stood on Crawford Corners-Everett Road in front of the Stout-H endrickson house. It was removed from the roadside some years ago and placed in the back yard by a former occupant of t he home. It is with great sadness that I report that the Stout-Hendrickson House was torn down, despite local efforts t o protect it, and no longer survives [July, 2010]. http://www.valsamides-design.com/index.html