| iii. | Corp. Richard Coy Sr.237,557,992,993,1758,1759 was
born about 1625 in Boston, Lincolnshire, England.237,557,992 He died on 2 Aug 1675 in Brookfield, Worcester County,
Massachusetts.237,557,1759 He
was killed by Indians.237,1759,1761
Richard Coy was brought to Boston from Lincolnshire, England as a servant without
an indenture, around 1638, by a Mr. Whittingham. Coy, who was then 13 years
old, emigrated with his brother Matthew, age 15, and a sister Mary. A short
time later, Whittingham apparently sold his interests in Coy to William Hubbard,
Sr. of Ipswich, whom Coy was to serve for 10 years, according to his agreement
with Whittingham. Hubbard's claim to Coy's services was maintained by the court
in 1645, at which time Hubbard brought suit against Coy because of Coy's reluctance
to serve him.
In all probability Hubbard found Coy difficult to manage. In 1649, for example.
Coy was presented at court for vain mirth, excessive drinking and singing with
frequent oaths; but he was subsequently discharged. In that same year, Coy brought
suit against one Edward Bishop on the charge that Bishop had slandered him.
In December of 1650, Coy was numbered among the original settlers of Salisbury;
but he apparently was not seated as a townsman and commoner at that time. In
1651, in a case involving William Hubbard, Richard Coy and his wife both testified.
Coy's wife was a Hayfield (Haffield), and after the death of Richard Hayfielkd
of Ipswich in 1652, Hayfield's children chose Coy to be their guardian. He received
60 pounds due the children, in lands, house, cattle and other goods, and aquitted
the mother of the children, Martha Hayfield. Ruth Hayfield, who was a daughter
of Martha Hayfield, was presented to court in 1653 for excess in apparel, but
Richard Coy affirmed that Ruth's mother was worth at least 200 pounds, and she
was discharged. In a later action in 1653 Richard Coy's wife was also involved
with the law. Her husband answered her presentment, however, and she was discharged.
Richard Coy brought suit against Willialm Hubbard, Sr. in 1655, apparently to
obtain redress of alleged wrongs done him by his master. At that time it was
sworn that Coy had served only eight and one half years of his obligated time,
and that Hubbard had agreed to pay Cioy if he would work on. Matthew Coy, Richard's
brother, testified to the effect that Coy's mother had wanted her son to serve
only Whittingham or to return home. It was also said that when Coy had been
sent away from Hubbard, it had been with insufficient, poor clothing.
Coy had apparently made good his obligation to William Hubbard by 1658. In that
year he was licensed to keep an ordinary and to draw wine and "strong waters"
in Wenham, to whence he had moved. His license was renewed in 1659 and again
in 1660.
In 1659 Richard Coy was seated on the jury of trials at Salem, and alter that
same year he was summoned once more as a trial juror. He was also chosen, in
1659, to assist in taking a census of those living in Wenham in order that the
rate for the minister might be determined. He was also to see to the allotment
of a parcel of land to Mr. Newman, the minister, to see that Mr. Newman got his
proper fee, and to act with the selectmen in levying and collecting a rate for
the new meeting house. Richard Coy, apparently an important figure in the church
himself by that time, contributed 2 pounds 10 shillings toward the minister's
rate, and 10 shillings for the new meeting house.
In 1660 Richard Coy served as an attorney in a legal action. He lost the case,
which was appealed at the next Court of Assistants. John Leigh and Joseph Armitage
were bound for Coy's appearance. During the course of the case it was mentioned
that Coy had smoething to do with the local schoolhouse, or the establishment
of it. The case itself involved the ownership of a house which had been converted
into a schoolhouse. The house had formerly been part of the Hayfield estate,
and was sold by Coy as part of that estate.
The following year, 1661, Coy was involved in a property suit in which Walter
Fairfield brought legal action against Richard Hutten. It was deposed that the
house then in possession of Richard Coy was formerly John Fairfield's, as was
the land upon which it sat. John Fairfield's son was the plaintiff in the case.
Coy, then aged 35, deposed that the land was owned by one Samuel Smith, who
sold it to the late John Fairfield, and that it was part of the farm given by
the town of Salem to Smith in Wenham. He also testified that Hutten opposed
giving Walter Fairfield the property unless he could recover it by law.
Richard Coy was a witness in a case involving a Wenham man, in 1661, who was
presented on a complaint of his entertaining too manypeople in his house contrary
to law. That year he was also seated once more on the jury of trials at Ipswich
court. His name was also returned again later for jury duty.
Between 1662 and 1664, Richard Coy was mentioned in connection with no less than
five separate, minor cases. The most interesting of those cases concerned a
13 year old apprenticed servant, Hope Tyler, who had left his master's service
without his master's consent and had found refuge in Coy's home.
In 1664, Walter and John Fairfield, the heirs of John Fairfield, brought suit
against Richard Coy for withholding possession of a house and lands which had
been their late father's. Coy won the suit after producing a lease which stated
that he was entitled to keep the house and farm for eight years, until July 21,
1666, at which time the heirs of John Fairfield were to take possession of both
the house and lands. According to the lease, Coy had to pay 50 shillings rent
the first year and 5 pounds each year after that, half in wheat and half in Indian
corn. He was also to be allowed the cose of whatever fences or buildings he
had put up on the land during his tenure. Richard Hutten also testified that
Walter Fairfield had rented 1/3 of the farm from Coy some time earlier for 10
pounds.
The following year, 1665, Walter Fairfield was fined upon the complaint of Richard
Coy that Fairfield and his wife had abused Coy's wife and children. Coy and
his wife Martha had several small children under eight years of age at that time
(including John and Jebuz), as well as a son Richard who was about 15 and a daughter
Martha who was about 14. (The Coy's had a son Caleb in 1666). Coy, his wife,
and his son all testified that Fairfield threatened to beat Goodwife Coy and
that he had also abused the children.
Francis Wainwright sued Richard Coy in 1665 for a debt. Wainwright won the suit,
and the court ordered the attachment of oats, wheat, and corn belonging to Coy.
Coy's barn was subsequently attached, too. Wainwright sued Edmund Batter and
Walter Fairfield in 1666 because part of Coy's wheat, oats and Indian corn had
been delivered to Batter, and because Coy had sold his barn to Walter Fairfield,
who delivered 6 pounds for it to the man who had attached it. The plaintiff
won the suits.
In 1666 Richard Coy contributed a horse to a fund for a friend who had to put
up security for his wife's appearance at the Court of Assistants so that she
would not have to go to prison. Coy was also named in connection with a petition
of Rachael Clinton, who had been deprived of a legacy of 30 pounds for 13 years,
first by her brother, Richard Coy, and then by her husband, Thomas White. Exactly
what her relation was to Coy is not clear at this point, but she must have been
his sister-in-law and former ward. Coy was apparently living in Salisbury in
1666, at least for some time.
In 1667, in answer to a petition of the residents of Quabaug, Coy and several
other men were apopointed to serve on a commission with the power to admit residents,
grant lands, and order all prudential affairs of the place in all matters. Coy
and the other commissioners were to continue in their authority until Quabaug
was so well settled that it might be created a township, according to law. Coy
was then a militia coporal and a leading man of the town. "Coy's Hill"
and "Coy's Brook" were named for him. Later, in 1673, Coy's name and
that of his son Richard appeared on a petition requesting that Quabaug be renamed
Brookfield.
The widow Martha Hayfield of Ipswich died in 1668. An inventory of her estate
was taken by her sons-in-law Richard Coy and Thomas White. Coy's wife, Martha
Hayfield Coy, was mentioned as an heiress in her mother's estate. Richard Coy
was also mentioned in a minor legal case in 1669.
Richard Coy was killed in battle in 1675 when Brookfield was destroyed by Indians.
He was a Brookfield militia corporal at the time. His widow fled to Boston
with their children. Later, in 1699, John Coy of Wenham and his wife Elizabeth
sold their farm in Brookfield and the property rights inherited from his father,
to one Thomas Barns. One of Coy's grandsons was apparently living in Beverly
in 1723. In fact, he was more than likely a prominent man there and was perhaps
even a proprietor. He drowned, somewhere in Virginia, in 1737.
Richard Coy of Essex County, 1625-1675: A Biographical Sketch by Richard A.
Rutyna |
Richard Coy237,994
was born about 1590 in Boston, Lincolnshire, England.237 He signed a will on 22 Dec 1637.994 He died before 10 Apr 1638 in Stamford, Lincolnshire,
England.237 His estate
was probated on 10 Apr 1638 in Stamford, Lincolnshire, England.994 Origin of Matthew and Richard Coy, in 1638 of Boston,
Massachusetts.